New Good Time Challenge Seeking Supreme Court Consideration
In Tablada v. Thomas (No. 08-1134), the petitioner asks the Supreme Court of the United States to review how the Bureau of Prisons (BOP) awards good conduct credit.
Tablada challenges the way the BOP interprets 18 U.S.C. § 3624(b). The BOP assumes that the 54 days of credit a prisoner may earn annually to reduce his sentence is calculated according to the actual time a prisoner spends in prison (thus excluding from consideration those days for which sentence was imposed but which the prisoner won’t serve because of good time credits).
Tablada argues, and FAMM and others agree, that the sentence imposed must be the starting point. Thus, the 54 days credit annually must be applied to reduce the full term of the sentence, not the sentence as shortened by good time. The BOP’s interpretation means that prisoners are entitled to reduce their sentence by 47 days a year. Tablada’s interpretation means that prisoners are entitled to reduce their sentences by 54 days a year. By the BOP’s reasoning, a prisoner serving a 10-year sentence can only have their sentenced reduced by 470 days, while under Tablada’s reasoning (and Congress’s intent), that prisoner is entitled to 540 days reduction.
This case is the latest in several appeals to the Supreme Court to examine the issue. The Court has denied certiorari (in other words, denied review) in several cases, including in Moreland v. Fed. Bureau of Prisons, 547 U.S. 1106 (2006), in which Justice Stevens wrote:
I think it appropriate to emphasize that the Court’s action does not constitute a ruling on the merits and certainly does not represent an expression of any opinion concerning the wisdom of the Government’s position. [B]oth the text and the history of the statute strongly suggest that it was not intended to alter the pre-existing approach of calculating good-time credit based on the sentence imposed.
FAMM has offered amicus support to many cases in the courts of appeals challenging the BOP’s method of calculating good time. In Tablada, FAMM joined the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers (NACDL), the National Association of Federal Defenders (NAFD), and Prison Fellowship Ministries, among others, in urging the Supreme Court to grant review. Click here to read FAMM’s amicus brief.
FAMM is very grateful to Peter Pfaffenroth and Jeffrey T. Green, who led a team of lawyers from the law firm of Sidley Austin LLP in Washington, D.C., and the Northwestern University Supreme Court Practicum in Chicago, Ill. for representing us.