SCOTUS: William Maxwell First Step Act Case May Be Dismissed

• The Supreme Court heard arguments on whether federal prisoners can use habeas petitions to challenge First Step Act early release denials.
• The Justice Department urged the Court to dismiss the case as improvidently granted, citing William Maxwell's imminent release.
• Justices expressed skepticism about the government's request, noting the Court had already granted certiorari in June.
• The case involves William Maxwell, who was denied accelerated release by the Bureau of Prisons despite earning credits under the First Step Act.
• The Fifth Circuit ruled Maxwell should have filed a civil rights lawsuit, a decision the government now concedes was incorrect.

Clarifying the appropriate procedural mechanism—habeas corpus versus a civil rights lawsuit—is paramount for ensuring consistent application of the First Step Act.

The Supreme Court recently heard oral arguments concerning a Texas inmate's quest for early release from federal prison, facing an unusual request from the federal government. During the proceedings, the Justice Department suggested that the high court should dismiss the case as improvidently granted, a move that would allow the justices to sidestep intricate legal questions surrounding the application of habeas corpus petitions under the 2018 First Step Act.

This proposal met with considerable skepticism from several justices. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson voiced her concern, noting that the Court had already decided to hear the case when it granted certiorari in June. She characterized the government's argument as an attempt to "relitigate certiorari." Justice Sonia Sotomayor echoed this sentiment, suggesting the government was trying to prevail on an argument it had not presented during the initial petition stage, raising questions about the timing and intent behind the request.

At the heart of the dispute is William Maxwell, a federal prisoner whose request for accelerated release was denied by the Bureau of Prisons (BOP) despite his having earned credits under the First Step Act. This landmark 2018 criminal justice reform law enables federal prisoners to accrue credits towards placement in prerelease custody, such as a halfway house or home confinement, by participating in recidivism reduction programs. Maxwell, believing his continued incarceration violated federal law, initiated a habeas petition seeking his release.

However, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled against Maxwell, asserting that he should have pursued a civil rights lawsuit instead of a habeas petition. This decision set the stage for the Supreme Court to clarify the appropriate legal mechanism for federal prisoners challenging BOP decisions regarding early release under the First Step Act, a critical point of contention for post-conviction relief.

Despite the Fifth Circuit's ruling, the federal government conceded that the appeals court's decision was incorrect, agreeing that Maxwell's claim should have been brought through a habeas petition. Yet, the government simultaneously argued that the Supreme Court should not intervene to correct this error because Maxwell was scheduled for release in January. Kevin Barber, assistant to the solicitor general at the Justice Department, stated that Maxwell's imminent release would effectively moot a ruling from the high court, admitting that this complication was not raised in the certiorari briefs, remarking, "That was our bad."

Justice Neil Gorsuch humorously noted the rarity of such an admission from the high court's podium. While Justice Samuel Alito acknowledged that there is no absolute rule against dismissing a case as improvidently granted if the court experiences "a very severe case of buyer’s regret," most justices appeared inclined to proceed with the appeal and potentially rule in Maxwell's favor. Nonetheless, concerns were raised about the broader implications of their decision, with Gorsuch questioning the potential for a "camel’s nose under the tent" scenario regarding future changes in custody levels, such as transfers from medium to minimum security.

The Supreme Court's eventual ruling in this case holds significant weight for federal prisoners seeking early release and for legal practitioners advising them. The central issue of whether a federal prisoner can bring a habeas petition to challenge Bureau of Prisons accelerated release decisions under the First Step Act remains unresolved, with the Fifth Circuit's prior ruling creating a procedural hurdle. Clarifying the appropriate procedural mechanism—habeas corpus versus a civil rights lawsuit—is paramount for ensuring consistent application of the First Step Act.

Justice Amy Coney Barrett suggested that the high court could mitigate concerns about setting overly broad precedents by narrowly tailoring its decision to the specific question presented in Maxwell's case. A definitive ruling will establish a critical precedent, guiding future challenges to BOP denials of early release and providing much-needed clarity for federal prisoners and their legal counsel navigating the complexities of post-conviction relief under the First Step Act.

Lawyers advising federal prisoners on post-conviction relief should closely follow the Supreme Court's eventual ruling, as it will clarify the appropriate procedural mechanism (habeas corpus vs. civil rights lawsuit) for challenging Bureau of Prisons' denials of early release under the First Step Act, potentially establishing a critical precedent for future cases.

Source: Original reporting via CN