FAMM regrets to announce that, on June 7, 2010, the U.S. Supreme Court sided with the government in Barber v. Thomas, 560 U.S. ___ (2010), the federal good time case. The Court held that the BOP’s calculation of good time credit is based on “the most natural reading of the statute, and we reject petitioners’ legal challenges.” The Court was asked to interpret the good time statute and determine whether the BOP should calculate good time credit based on the sentence imposed (our position) or on the sentence actually served (BOP’s position).
The good time statute, 18 U.S.C. § 3624(b), provides that most federal prisoners may receive credit of up to 54 days at the end of each year of the term of imprisonment for good conduct. Prisoners and their advocates, including FAMM, have argued that the phrase “term of imprisonment” means only the sentence imposed and that any credit should be calculated to shorten the imposed sentence. Accordingly, a 10-year sentence should generate 540 days of good time credit to be deducted from the 10-year sentence.
In contrast, the BOP has interpreted “term of imprisonment” to mean “time served” and has refused to apply the credit to the sentence beyond the time served. The BOP’s calculation results in 47 days of credit for every year of the imposed sentence, or only 470 days of credit on a 10-year sentence.
The difference between the two calculations for a 10-year sentence is 70 days.
In a 6-3 decision, the Supreme Court, in an opinion authored by Justice Breyer, sided with the BOP and held that good time calculations should be based on the time actually served by the prisoner. The Court rejected the various textual and legislative history arguments offered by Mr. Barber. And, while conceding that the good time statute is a penal statute subject to the defendant-friendly “rule of lenity,” the Court refused to invoke that rule, saying it only applies in the case of a “grievous ambiguity or uncertainty in the statute.” The Court found no grievous ambiguity in the statute.
This ruling means that the BOP’s current calculation method is lawful and that federal prisoners will continue to receive a maximum of only 47 days of good time credit for each year of the sentence, instead of 54 days.
The majority opinion was met with a strong and at times eloquent dissent, written by Justice Anthony Kennedy and joined by Justices Stevens and Ginsburg. Justice Kennedy, who had spoken movingly at oral argument about the human and fiscal costs of the BOP’s method, wrote in the beginning of his opinion:
[T]he Court’s interpretation – an interpretation that in my submission is quite incorrect – imposes tens of thousands of years of additional prison time on federal prisoners according to a mathematical formula they will be unable to understand. And if the only way to call attention to the human implications of this case is to speak in terms of economics, then it should be noted that the Court’s interpretation comes at a cost to the taxpayers of untold millions of dollars. The interpretation the Court adopts, moreover, will be devastating to the prisoners who have behaved the best and will undermine the purposes of the statute.
Justice Kennedy closed his dissent with equal force:
[The Court] advocates an interpretation that uses different definitions for the same phrase in the same sentence; denies prisoners the benefit of the rule of lenity; and caps off its decision with an appendix that contains an algebraic formula to hang on a cell wall.
To a prisoner, time behind bars is not some theoretical or mathematical concept. It is something real, even terrifying. Survival itself may be at stake.
There are currently four bills in Congress -- H.R. 4752, H.R. 4327, H.R. 1475, and H.R. 61 – which would change the good time statute or increase the amount of good time a federal prisoner can earn. FAMM supports all four bills. None of them has become a law yet. You can read about their progress by clicking here and scrolling down to the section titled “Good Time Legislation.”
Click here to read the Supreme Court’s full opinion in Barber.
Click here to read all the briefs in the case.
Click here to read FAMM’s amicus brief.
To understand more about good time, read FAMM’s FAQs about Federal Good Time Credit.
FAMM wishes to thank all the prisoners, lawyers, and advocates who kept the faith on this issue over the years, including Oregon Deputy Federal Public Defender Steve Sady, who reached the Supreme Court on this issue, and FAMM’s amicus team for Barber from Sidley & Austin, Jeffrey T. Green and Peter Pfaffenroth.