As you know, last September the BOP changed its email system to make mass emailing of this newsletter impossible.

This is a copy of the newsletter for June 2, 2025. I have reformatted it to eliminate graphics so everything printed in black will fit into a Corrlinks email (if you are providing it to an inmate).

LISA Newsletter for June 2, 2025 – Things are Seldom What They Seem

LISA publishes a free newsletter sent to inmate subscribers in the Federal system. Due to BOP Corrlinks limitations, the newsletter must be sent in small batches throughout the week.

Edited by Thomas L Root, MA, JD

Vol 11, No 21

<><>

The Ol’ Switcheroo
The Wild, Wild West Wing Manages to Make Clemency Even Crazier
SCOTUS Grants Review on How Wide Compassionate Release Might Be

<><>

THE OL’ SWITCHEROO

Remember two months ago, when the BOP said no one would get more than 60 days of Second Chance Act halfway house time, only to recant a week or so later?

You may not be old enough to be familiar with Gilbert and Sullivan’s light operas, 19th-century musicals that parodied British life. In HMS Pinafore, Buttercup tries to hint to the captain that despite their difference in societal status, they might be able to hook up. She sings, “Things are seldom what they seem, skim milk masquerades as cream, black sheep dwell in every fold, all that glitters is not gold…”

The Bureau of Prisons proved that this week. A memorandum that at first seemed to be a wonderful expansion of home confinement turns out to strip away SCA rights from people who have been in the longest. It is not what it seems.

The BOP has not released the memo, just a press release. The release provides that home confinement will be “a priority for individuals who are eligible and do not require the structured support of an RRC. RRC placement will be reserved for those with the greatest need.” What’s more, unit teams are directed to “use FSA and SCA Conditional Placement Dates—based on projected Earned Time Credits (FTCs) expected to earn—to guide prerelease planning and ensure accurate and timely referrals.”

More home confinement. Great news, right?

Not really. The new policy does not expand the BOP’s authority to place prisoners on home confinement by even one day. Ever since 2008, the BOP has had the authority to place inmates in home confinement for the final 10 pct of their sentences (up to a maximum of 6 months) under 18 USC 3624(c)(2). Six years ago, the First Step Act amended 3624(c)(2) to direct that the BOP, “to the extent practicable, place prisoners with lower risk levels and lower needs on home confinement for the maximum amount of time permitted under this paragraph.”

However, none of the BOP’s authority meant much up to now. BOP staff largely did not send people directly to home confinement. It was easier to send them to halfway house and then let the halfway house send them on to home confinement and do the monitoring. The halfway houses were glad to do it, because it freed up a bed they could sell for another inmate, and they still got some payment for the inmate they were continuing to monitor.

The BOP has apparently figured out that it can better use the limited number of halfway house beds it has under contract (and save money) by sending low-risk inmates directly to home confinement. It’s the right call, but it doesn’t expand the availability of home confinement. The BOP has no more power to put people on home confinement today than it had a week ago, a month ago, a year ago, or even as of December 21, 2018.

What’s worse is what the memo does NOT say. On Saturday, Walter Pavlo reported in Forbes that “when asked whether inmates are still eligible for Second Chance Act placement up to 12 months prior to their FSA conditional placement date, as has been the case, the BOP responded, ‘Due to statutory restrictions found in 18 U.S.C. 3624(c)(1), an individual who has earned 365 days (12 months) of First Step Act credits to be applied to prerelease custody cannot receive additional prerelease time under the Second Chance Act.’”

This means that no one with 730 or more FSA credits will get any SCA halfway house or home confinement. Pavlo wrote, “The BOP’s current stance contradicts its position from just a few months ago, when it stated that stacking First Step Act and Second Chance Act benefits was permissible. Now, without addressing its previous position, the BOP asserts that home confinement under the Second Chance Act is only allowed by law during the final 12 months of a prison sentence. Additionally, the BOP claims that home confinement under the First Step Act can only be applied when the First Step Act time credits earned are equal to the remaining length of the prison term. This means an inmate cannot apply First Step Act credits to home confinement while also receiving up to 12 months of prerelease custody (6 months in a halfway house and 6 months in home confinement) under the Second Chance Act. For many inmates, this change means they will have to remain in prison for up to a year longer than they had initially expected.”

In the press release, BOP Director William K. Marshall III boasted that “President Trump said he would fight for the forgotten men and women of this country, and the First Step Act proved he meant it. Now, we are ensuring that this reform continues to work—not just as a policy, but as a promise to Americans seeking redemption and a path forward.”

BOP Press Release, Federal Bureau of Prisons Issues Directive to Expand Home Confinement, Advance First Step Act (May 28)

Forbes, Prisoners Set Back By Bureau Of Prisons Home Confinement Expansion (May 31)
<><>

THE WILD, WILD WEST WING MAKES CLEMENCY EVEN CRAZIER

The rolling waves of pardons and commutations emanating from the White House seem like good news to federal prisoners, who are filing clemency petitions to get in on the frenzy, much like small investors jump in on a rapidly rising meme stock.

Over the past several weeks, President Donald Trump has issued a wave of pardons and sentence reductions to dozens of people. That’s good news. The bad news is that the recipients of Trump’s largesse are largely political allies, campaign donors, law enforcement officials, and Republican politicians.

The lessons are these: The three sure-fire ways to get clemency are to be a rabid Trump supporter, to have millions to spend, or to know someone.

For more than a century, career civil servants led the Dept of Justice Office of Pardon Attorney, evaluating clemency petitions based on legal and humanitarian criteria that were criticized for the glacial review pace, too much DOJ input, and opaque and sometimes inconsistent decisions. But now, newly appointed Pardon Attorney Ed Martin, a vigorous Trump partisan, “has begun turning the office into a new pipeline for political allies to get their cases in front of Trump,” the Wall Street Journal reported last week. Martin unabashedly described his pardon approach last week on X: “No MAGA left behind.”

Martin said he is working closely with Alice Johnson, the White House pardon czar whom Trump pardoned of drug offenses during his first term. That’s good news. The bad news is Martin’s approach: “The message should be clear that we’re sticking by people that do good things and the right things.”

Martin’s first pardon recommendation, adopted by Trump last week, was Scott Jenkins, the former sheriff of Culpeper County, Virginia. Jenkins was to report to prison last week after being convicted of selling no-show auxiliary sheriff’s deputy positions for over $75,000 in bribes. The evidence included videos of the sheriff accepting bags of cash and testimony from some of the people who bought the badges. He was sentenced to 120 months.

But as the Bulwark explained it last week, “Jenkins was a rabidly anti-immigrant, pro-Trump sheriff who’d become a minor celebrity in MAGA world. Trump himself may not have known of him, but Ed Martin did… Martin celebrated his achievement just after the pardon: “Thank you, President Trump! I am thrilled that Sheriff Jenkins is the first pardon since I became your Pardon Attorney.”

For those not connected to MAGA, seeking clemency “has become big business for lobbying and consulting firms close to the administration, with wealthy hopefuls willing to spend millions of dollars for help getting their case in front of the right people,” a lobbyist told NBC News. “From a lobbying perspective, pardons have gotten profitable.”

Two people directly familiar with proposals to lobbying firms said they knew of a client’s offer of $5 million to help get a case to Trump. “Cozying up to a president’s allies or hiring lobbyists to gain access to clemency isn’t new,” NBC said. “But along with the price spike, what’s different now is that Trump is issuing pardons on a rolling basis — rather than most coming at the end of the administration.”

“It’s like the Wild West,” a Trump ally and lobbyist said. “You can basically charge whatever you want.”

But what about Alice Johnson, appointed as Pardon Czar to bring worthy clemency candidates to President Trump? Is that working?

Alice apparently was instrumental in bringing reality TV stars and celebrity whiners Todd and Julie Chrisley to Trump for full pardons of their bank and tax fraud convictions. Todd stayed in the headlines for the 24 months he served of his 12-year sentence by claiming, among other things, that FPC Pensacola was “literally” starving inmates to death, that the prisoners were forced to live in filth and eat contaminated food, and that he “feared for his life.”

“I know not only their stories, but I make sure that I’m selecting people who have either been rehabilitated, who pose no safety risk, and also we look at cases where there has been obvious weaponization against these individuals,” Alice Johnson told NewsNation Now. She was quoted in E! Online as saying, “The celebrity part really didn’t play a role in this… These are everyday Americans who deserve a second chance,” she continued. “I’ve really been looking at those who pose no safety risk, don’t have victims of violent crimes. These people need to be returned to their families. They really get a chance to have a second shot at life.”

A month ago, Trump pardoned Paul Walczak, a former nursing home executive sentenced to 18 months in prison and ordered to pay more than $4 million in restitution for tax crimes. The pardon came after Walczak’s mom, a GOP donor, attended a $1-million-per-person Trump fundraising dinner at Mar-a-Lago, the New York Times reported.

Another example: One “everyday American” prisoner who received clemency last week was serving a 50-year sentence for healthcare fraud. One of his co-defendants, however, had been Alice Johnson’s cellie at FCI Aliceville. Alice got her sprung in 2020. Five years later, the co-defendant lobbied Alice to get him out, too.

It’s a different clemency world than it’s ever been before, but the average federal inmate is further from fair consideration than ever.

CNN, ‘No MAGA left behind’: Trump’s pardons get even more political (May 28)

NBC, Trump pardons drive a big, burgeoning business for lobbyists (May 31)

Washington Post, Trump’s clemency spree extends to ex-gangster, rapper, former congressmen (May 29)

The Bulwark, Trump’s Dangerous Pardon Power (May 27)

Pensacola News Journal, Todd Chrisley served sentence at Pensacola Federal Prison Camp before pardon. What to know (May 28)

NY Times, Trump Pardoned Tax Cheat After Mother Attended $1 Million Dinner (May 27)
<><>

SCOTUS GRANTS REVIEW ON HOW WIDE COMPASSIONATE RELEASE MIGHT BE

The Supreme Court last Tuesday granted review to Fernandez v US, a case asking whether a combination of “extraordinary and compelling reasons” supporting a sentence reduction under 18 USC 3582(c)(1)(A) can include reasons that may also be grounds for setting aside a sentence under 28 USC 2255.

In Fernandez, a district court granted the prisoner a “compassionate release” for reasons that included the court’s belief that there was substantial evidence that he was actually innocent of the murder and that his sentence was disparately long compared to those of his co-defendants (who became informants). The 2nd Circuit reversed, holding that factors that would work for a 2255 motion could not be relied on in a 3582(c)(1)(A) compassionate release.

The 2nd Circuit’s holding was contrary to decisions of the 1st and 9th Circuits, which have each held that district courts are not restricted from considering matters under 18 USC 3582(c)(1)(A) other than the sole restriction – rehabilitation alone cannot support compassionate release – set forth in the law by Congress. The Supreme Court will decide what limits, if any, cabin a judge on what he or she may consider as extraordinary and compassionate reasons for compassionate release.

Fernandez v US, Case No 24-556 (cert granted May 23)
<><>

The LISA Newsletter is copyright 2025, LISA Foundation, PO Box 636, Norwalk OH 44857.

Your family may read our newsletter online at www.lisa-legalinfo.com.

PLEASE SHARE THIS NEWSLETTER