Amicus Curiae Brief — William Maxwell, Petitioner v. Sandra Dinis, Acting Warden

Supreme Court briefAug 12, 2026

Ask Donna

What actually matters in this document.

Text

No. 25-5930

In the Supreme Court of the United States

WILLIAM MAXWELL,

Petitioner,

SANDRA DINIS, ACTING WARDEN,

Respondent.

On Writ of Certiorari to the

United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

BRIEF OF FAMM AS AMICUS CURIAE

IN SUPPORT OF PETITIONER

MICHAEL J. MESTITZ

SHANNA RIFKIN

Counsel of Record

FAMM Foundation

1100 H. Street, N.W.

ALEENA IJAZ

McDermott Will & Schulte LLP

Suite 1000

Washington, D.C. 20005 500 North Capitol Street N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20001

(202) 756-8000

mmestitz@mcdermottlaw.com

Counsel for Amicus Curiae

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Table of Authorities.................................................... ii

Interest of Amicus Curiae ...........................................1

Introduction and Summary of Argument ...................1

Argument .....................................................................4

I. The First Step Act requires the Bureau of

Prisons to place eligible individuals in two

forms of prerelease custody. ..................................4

A. Residential reentry centers, or “halfway

houses” ..............................................................5

B. Home confinement ............................................8

II. Prerelease custody is meaningfully

different from traditional incarceration..............10

Conclusion .................................................................19

(i)

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

Cases

Bufkin v. Collins,

604 U.S. 369 (2025) ................................................ 5

Dep’t of Homeland Sec. v.

Thuraissigiam,

591 U.S. 103 (2020) ................................................ 3

Jones v. Hendrix,

599 U.S. 465 (2023) ................................................ 3

Peyton v. Rowe,

391 U.S. 54 (1968) .................................................. 3

Preiser v. Rodriguez,

411 U.S. 475 (1973) ................................................ 3

Samak v. Warden, FCC ColemanMedium,

766 F.3d 1271 (11th Cir. 2014) .............................. 3

Skinner v. Switzer,

562 U.S. 521 (2011) ................................................ 3

Wilkinson v. Dotson,

544 U.S. 74 (2005) .................................................. 3

Statutes

18 U.S.C.

§ 3624...................................................................... 5

§ 3624(c)(2) ............................................................. 8

§ 3624(g)(2) ......................................................... 2, 5

§ 3624(g)(2)(A)(i) .................................................... 9

§ 3624(g)(2)(A)(i)(II) ............................................... 9

28 U.S.C.

§ 2241................................................................ 2, 19

§ 2241(c)(3) ....................................................... 2, 19

iii

Other Authorities

164 Cong. Rec. S7645 (daily ed. Dec. 17,

2018) (statement of Sen. Durbin) .......................... 5

164 Cong. Rec. S7649 (daily ed. Dec. 17,

2018) (statement of Sen. Grassley) ....................... 5

164 Cong. Rec. S7749 (daily ed. Dec. 18,

2018) (statement of Sen. Leahy)............................ 4

164 Cong. Rec. S7778 (daily ed. Dec. 18,

2018) (statement of Sen. Grassley) ....................... 5

BOP, About Our Facilities .................................. 6, 7, 8

BOP, Federal Bureau of Prisons Issues

Directive to Expand Home Confinement, Advance First Step Act (2025) ................... 10

FAMM, Stories: Cecilia Cardenas (Oct.

4, 2022) ................................................................. 11

First Step Act, Pub. L. 115-391,

132 Stat. 5194 ............ 2, 4, 5, 11, 12, 14, 15, 17, 19

Govtrack, S. 756 (115th): First Step Act .................... 4

Jessica Bouchard & Jennifer S. Wong,

The New Panopticon? Examining the

Effect of Home Confinement on

Criminal Recidivism, 13 VICTIMS &

OFFENDERS 589 (2018) ......................................... 10

Remarks by President Trump at Signing

Ceremony for S. 756, the “First Step

Act of 2018” and H.R. 6964, the

“Juvenile Justice Reform Act of

2018,” 2018 WL 6715859 (2018) ........................ 4, 8

Stephen M. Cox & John C. Kilburn, The

Impact of Halfway Houses on Parole

Success and Recidivism, 6 J. Socio.

Rsch. 39 (2015) ....................................................... 8

Other Authorities—continued

U.S. Gov’t Accountability Off., GAO-26107353, Bureau of Prisons: Actions

Needed to Better Achieve Financial

and Other Benefits of Moving

Individuals to Halfway Houses on

Time (2026)................................................. 6, 7, 8, 9

INTEREST OF AMICUS CURIAE 1

FAMM (formerly Families Against Mandatory

Minimums) is a national, nonprofit, nonpartisan organization dedicated to promoting fair and proportionate sentencing policies and challenging inflexible

and excessive penalties required by mandatory sentencing laws. For nearly thirty-five years, FAMM has

worked to restore discretion to judges to distinguish

among individually situated defendants according to

their role in the offense, the seriousness of the offense,

their potential for rehabilitation, and other individual

characteristics. Since its founding in 1991, FAMM has

grown to include 75,000 supporters, including currently and formerly incarcerated people, family members, practitioners, and concerned citizens. FAMM’s

vision is a nation in which sentencing is individualized, humane, and sufficient to impose just punishment, secure public safety, and support successful rehabilitation. FAMM accomplishes its purposes

through education of the general public, selected amicus filings in important cases, congressional testimony, and advocacy.

INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT

As Petitioner Maxwell correctly explains, habeas

relief has long been available for “level-of-custody”

claims like the one he brings here, which challenges

his ongoing incarceration and seeks “accelerated

transfer from prison to distinct and materially less

Pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 37.6, amicus curiae states

that no counsel for any party authored this brief in whole or in

part and that no entity or person, aside from amicus and their

counsel, made any monetary contribution intended to fund the

preparation or submission of this brief.

(1)

restrictive custody served outside of prison walls.”

Pet. Br. 5.

FAMM writes to explain why the availability of

meaningful and timely judicial relief through a habeas petition is vitally important to enforcing the

mandatory system that Congress enacted in the First

Step Act. When Congress passed the First Step Act, it

mandated that individuals “shall be placed in” two

forms of prerelease custody when eligible: residential

reentry centers (so-called “halfway houses”), or home

confinement. 18 U.S.C. § 3624(g)(2) (emphasis added).

Many of FAMM’s members have moved from a

federal prison into halfway houses or home confinement. Their experiences confirm that prerelease custody is not merely a change of address, but a change

in kind. It restores contact with family, opens the door

to education and employment, and allows individuals

to begin—rather than merely await—the work of rebuilding their lives. Each day an individual spends in

a federal institution when the First Step Act entitles

them to a halfway house or home confinement is a day

of “prerelease custody” that Congress promised but

the BOP withheld.

As both Petitioner and the United States now

agree, the proper remedy for that deprivation is a writ

of habeas corpus. Section 2241 extends the writ of habeas corpus to a “prisoner” who is “in custody in violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the

United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 2241(c)(3). Neither Petitioner nor the United States disputes that individuals

in prison, halfway houses, or home confinement are in

“custody” for the purpose of section 2241(c)(3). See Pet.

Br. 16-17; U.S. Br. 27-30. Nor do Petitioner and the

United States dispute that claims like Petitioner’s—

to move from custody in prison to the “prerelease custody” Congress mandated—are the proper subject of

habeas relief. See Pet. Br. 15-34; U.S. Br. 24-35.

“[A] principal aim of the writ is to provide for swift

judicial review of alleged unlawful restraints on liberty.” Peyton v. Rowe, 391 U.S. 54, 63 (1968). And this

Court has been clear that such “unlawful restraints

on liberty” need not be the difference between incarceration and complete freedom. “[A]t its core,” habeas

is “a remedy for unlawful executive detention,” Dep’t

of Homeland Sec. v. Thuraissigiam, 591 U.S. 103, 119

(2020), and unlawful detention comes in many forms.

Thus, in Preiser v. Rodriguez, this Court held that a

request for release from imprisonment to parole fell

within the “core of habeas.” 411 U.S. 475, 487 (1973).

In Skinner v. Switzer, the Court reiterated that claims

within the core of habeas seek to “terminate custody,

accelerate the future date of release from custody, []or

reduce the level of custody.” 562 U.S. 521, 534 (2011)

(emphasis added and alterations incorporated) (rejecting claim for DNA testing of evidence and quoting

Wilkinson v. Dotson, 544 U.S. 74, 86 (2005) (Scalia, J.,

concurring)). And, most recently, in Jones v. Hendrix,

this Court confirmed that Congress preserved the

right for individuals to bring habeas challenges arguing they were “being detained in a place or manner

not authorized by the sentence, [or] that [they] ha[d]

unlawfully been denied parole or good-time credits.”

599 U.S. 465, 475 (2023) (citing Samak v. Warden,

FCC Coleman-Medium, 766 F.3d 1271, 1280 (11th

Cir. 2014) (Pryor, J., concurring)).

It is therefore well within the acknowledged core

of habeas for Petitioner to seek transfer to prerelease

custody according to the scheme that Congress

designed. Custody in a halfway house or home confinement is, as Petitioner explains, “distinct and materially less restrictive” than prison. Pet. Br. 5. As the

experiences of FAMM’s members illustrate, this

change makes a real and meaningful difference to a

person’s experience, even though they remain in custody of the BOP. Because the difference between

prison and prerelease custodial settings is so profound, the BOP’s failure to honor Congress’s mandate

works a continuing and substantial deprivation of liberty. It is, in short, exactly the kind of unlawful restraint that the writ of habeas corpus exists to remedy, and exactly why individuals like Petitioner must

be able to invoke that writ to enforce the First Step

Act’s mandate.

ARGUMENT

The First Step Act requires the Bureau of Prisons to place eligible individuals in two forms of

prerelease custody.

On December 20, 2018, Congress passed the First

Step Act. The very next day, President Donald J.

Trump signed it into law. Pub. L. 115-391, 132 Stat.

5194.

The Act was “not just bipartisan; it [was] nearly

nonpartisan.” 164 Cong. Rec. S7749 (daily ed. Dec. 18,

2018) (statement of Sen. Leahy). The Act passed the

Senate by a landslide vote of 87 to 12, and the House

by a vote of 358 to 36. Govtrack, S. 756 (115th): First

Step Act, perma.cc/25Z6-RWP8. President Trump

rightly called this level of Congressional consensus

“incredible” and “unheard of.” Remarks by President

Trump at Signing Ceremony for S. 756, the “First Step

Act of 2018” and H.R. 6964, the “Juvenile Justice Reform Act of 2018,” 2018 WL 6715859, *2-3 (2018).

Congressional leaders agreed. See 164 Cong. Rec.

S7645 (daily ed. Dec. 17, 2018) (statement of Sen. Durbin) (praising the First Step Act’s “extraordinary political coalition”); 164 Cong. Rec. S7778 (daily ed. Dec.

18, 2018) (statement of Sen. Grassley) (commenting

on the “diverse groups of people and organizations

that support the bill”).

With this unique consensus, Congress enacted

“the most significant criminal justice reform bill in a

generation.” 164 Cong. Rec. S7649 (daily ed. Dec. 17,

2018) (statement of Sen. Grassley). The First Step Act

introduced a host of correctional and sentencing reforms. And Congress spoke with unmistakable clarity

in making many of its landmark reforms mandatory

on the BOP: the First Step Act included the word

“shall” in 181 places across its amendments to the

criminal code. See Pub. L. 115-391, 132 Stat. 5194.

This language “imposes a mandatory command.”

Bufkin v. Collins, 604 U.S. 369, 379 (2025).

Among these mandatory provisions was a new,

Congressionally-crafted requirement that the BOP

transfer eligible individuals to lower-security, nonprison custodial settings based on earned-time or

good-time credits. Congress amended 18 U.S.C.

§ 3624, which governs “Release of a Prisoner,” to provide that eligible individuals “shall be placed in” two

forms of prerelease custody: halfway houses or home

confinement. 18 U.S.C. § 3624(g)(2).

A. Residential reentry centers, or “halfway

houses”

In a halfway house, officially called a “residential

reentry center,” an individual lives in a group setting

involving substantially fewer restrictions than any

level of prison. Residents also benefit from a wide

array of services that help them prepare for reentry.

The BOP itself touts halfway houses as “provid[ing] a

safe, structured, supervised environment, as well as

employment counseling, job placement, financial

management assistance, and other programs and services” allowing incarcerated individuals to “gradually

rebuild their ties to the community.” BOP, About Our

Facilities, perma.cc/4P6W-XDRM.

The rules at these facilities can differ from one another, but all are subject to regulation by the BOP.

BOP, About Our Facilities, perma.cc/4P6W-XDRM.

They are owned and operated by BOP contractors,

who remain answerable in all respects to a BOP official known as the Regional Reentry Manager. Restrictions on residents’ liberty, while materially different from a prison regimen, are substantial. Residents

“are generally expected to obtain gainful employment

and adhere to several rules, including adhering to a

curfew, not using illegal drugs, and obtaining ‘leave

passes’ before departing” the halfway house. U.S.

Gov’t Accountability Off., GAO-26-107353, Bureau of

Prisons: Actions Needed to Better Achieve Financial

and Other Benefits of Moving Individuals to Halfway

Houses on Time (2026), at 7. Residents must submit

detailed requests to leave the premises and obtain advance approval. While they are out, they must check

in with staff to confirm their location, or send photos

upon request proving they are where they promised to

be.

Notwithstanding these restrictions, halfway

houses by their very nature offer many opportunities

that prisons do not. After receiving permission from

the BOP, an individual may leave the halfway house

during the day for “approved activities, such as

seeking employment, working, counseling, visiting, or

recreation purposes.” BOP, About Our Facilities,

perma.cc/4P6W-XDRM. Staff assist individuals in

finding employment by using networks of local employers, as well as offering classes in resume writing

and interview techniques. Ibid. The BOP expects individuals to have a full-time job within 15 calendar

days of their arrival at the halfway house. Ibid.

Residents of halfway houses consistently report

that halfway houses help them secure and maintain

stable employment. In a study by the Government Accountability Office, a majority of halfway house residents surveyed “reported that they found the employment opportunities and resources available at their

[house], such as resume writing courses, beneficial,”

and these benefits included setting them up “for a

long-term career,” helping “save money,” “learning

how to use computers and cellular phones,” and helping “obtain licenses or certifications to work in fields

like construction.” U.S. Gov’t Accountability Off.,

GAO-26-107353, supra, at 28. As described by one resident, their placement at a halfway house was formative in helping to “get their life back together.” Id. at

29.

Perhaps most meaningfully, residents “cite[] the

opportunity to reconnect with family and friends as a

significant benefit of living at [a halfway house].” U.S.

Gov’t Accountability Off., GAO-26-107353, supra, at

29. While at a halfway house, residents may receive

passes to spend time outside of the center with their

families, which staff report as “an incentive to residents to work and integrate back into their communities.” Ibid.

All these programs—and the relative freedoms

that halfway houses provide—not only distinguish

halfway houses from traditional prison settings, but

also make them instrumental in increasing parole

completion and reducing criminal recidivism. Individuals who are successfully placed in halfway houses before reentry are “almost two times as likely to successfully complete parole” compared to “traditional parolees,” and “almost half as likely to recidivate” as compared to individuals “who were either released

directly into the community or selected for halfway

house programming and failed during transition.”

Stephen M. Cox & John C. Kilburn, The Impact of

Halfway Houses on Parole Success and Recidivism, 6

J. Socio. Rsch. 39, 49-50 (2015). Indeed, BOP officials

agree “that individuals are less likely to return to the

federal prison system, after living in and attending

programming in [a halfway house].” GAO-26-107353,

supra, at 14; see also BOP, About Our Facilities,

perma.cc/4P6W-XDRM (halfway houses “provide programs that help inmates rebuild their ties to the community and reduce[] the likelihood that they will recidivate.”).

B. Home confinement

In the First Step Act, Congress also instructed the

BOP to move as many individuals as possible into

home confinement, allowing them to live under BOP

supervision in their homes rather than behind bars.

Congress made its intent unmistakably clear in the

text of the statute: “[t]he Bureau of Prisons shall, to

the extent practicable, place prisoners * * * on home

confinement for the maximum amount of time permitted under this paragraph.” 18 U.S.C. § 3624(c)(2) (emphasis added).

Before the BOP transfers someone to home confinement, halfway house staff must conduct a home

visit and approve the location. GAO-26-107353, supra,

at 7 n.13. An individual in home confinement is subject to 24-hour electronic monitoring and must generally remain in their residence. 18 U.S.C.

§ 3624(g)(2)(A)(i). They may leave their homes, however, for several enumerated activities, including performing or looking for a job, performing community

service, receiving medical treatment, attending religious activities, and participating in family activities.

18 U.S.C. § 3624(g)(2)(A)(i)(II). They also remain subject to a halfway house’s policies and must return to

the halfway house weekly to participate in routine activities, as well as for drug and alcohol testing. GAO26-107353, supra, at 7. Here, too, they must obtain advance approval to leave their homes for any approved

activities and must check in regularly to prove their

compliance with the conditions of their custody. Staff

can make unannounced in-person checks at residences or workplaces at any time.

Although there are certainly restrictions imposed

on people in home confinement, and they remain legally in BOP custody serving the final portion of their

sentences, the difference between home confinement

and incarceration in a correctional institution is stark:

In home confinement, individuals function as community members, whereas in prison, they are separated

from their communities. Individuals in home confinement can thus “remain in a reasonably regular social

environment and maintain social relationships with

family, friends, and the community” and “act as contributing members to society by continuing to participate in meaningful work, education, and religious

activities.” Jessica Bouchard & Jennifer S. Wong, The

New Panopticon? Examining the Effect of Home Confinement on Criminal Recidivism, 13 VICTIMS & OFFENDERS 589, 591 (2018).

At the same time, individuals still receive the

structure and support necessary to enable successful

reentry. “[T]he structure and restrictions of [home

confinement] on the individual’s daily routine, as well

as the freedom of choice and ability to stay in control

of their own lives, are believed to be associated with

self-regulation and positive reintegration.” Bouchard,

supra, at 591. It is therefore no surprise that “home

confinement is cited as having fewer negative side effects (and more beneficial social impacts) compared

with prison.” Ibid. And home confinement also reduces the risk of recidivism: Individuals “who are sentenced to home confinement are significantly less

likely to commit a subsequent offense in comparison

with offenders who are released from a custodial facility.” Id. at 602.

The BOP itself has recognized these substantial

benefits of home confinement. In a 2025 directive to

“expand the use of home confinement for eligible individuals under the First Step Act,” the BOP emphasized that reforms like home confinement have

“helped individuals return to their communities with

a recidivism rate significantly lower than the national

average.” BOP, Federal Bureau of Prisons Issues Directive to Expand Home Confinement, Advance First

Step Act (2025), perma.cc/YC3Q-TB3N. The BOP affirmed its responsibility to “ensure that eligible incarcerated individuals * * * are transferred to home confinement as soon as statutorily possible.” Id. at 1.

II. Prerelease custody is meaningfully different

from traditional incarceration.

Congress instructed the BOP to move people to

prerelease custody for good reason: those settings—

while still forms of BOP control during the term of a

custodial sentence imposed by a court—are materially

different from confinement in a federal prison. While

halfway houses and home confinement are undoubtedly still forms of custody, see Pet. Br. 34-36; U.S. Br.

31-32, they offer individuals substantially greater

freedoms, and substantially more opportunities, than

traditional carceral settings.

For many, placement in a halfway house or in

home confinement is life changing—especially after

years of incarceration. The experiences of several

FAMM members illustrate firsthand the profound

benefits these prerelease settings offer, and the clear

difference between these settings and custody in an

institution.

1. Cecilia Cardenas was born in Breckenridge,

Texas and raised in Davenport, Iowa. During college,

Cecilia’s boyfriend sold drugs—and Cecilia admits she

made the “terrible” decision to start selling them, too.

At the age of 24, a judge sentenced her to ten years in

federal prison. But after seven years, Cecilia achieved

legal eligibility to move to home confinement with an

ankle monitor to serve the remainder of her sentence. 2

Cecilia’s story is available in full on FAMM’s website. FAMM,

Stories: Cecilia Cardenas, FAMM.com (Oct. 4, 2022),

perma.cc/TPX8-7GX6. Cecilia was transferred to home confinement under the CARES Act of 2020, not the First Step Act, but

the impact and legal implications are the same.

Cecilia’s move was transformative. The greater

freedom afforded by home confinement allowed Cecilia to reconnect with her family, restart her education by enrolling at Saint Ambrose University, and get

a job to support herself. Because of home confinement,

Cecilia was able to spend the remainder of her sentence in a setting that allowed her to work towards

her long-term goals, rather than merely waiting it out

in prison. Ultimately, Cecilia pursued a Bachelor of

Arts in finance, and started a small business providing accounting, bookkeeping, and payroll services.

None of this would have been possible from within the

walls of a federal institution.

2. Lauren 3 pleaded guilty in November 2019 to a

first-time, non-violent drug offense. A judge sentenced

her to twelve-and-a-half years in federal prison.

Thanks to the First Step Act’s earned time credits,

however, Lauren was able to move to home confinement in her mother’s home in March 2026. There,

Lauren has her own bedroom and bathroom. After living in prison conditions for years, having privacy and

personal space made a significant difference in her

overall well-being.

After being confined in federal prison for most of

her 20s, Lauren identifies readjusting to life outside

of prison as one of her greatest challenges. But her

placement in home confinement under the First Step

Act has significantly eased that adjustment.

For example, home confinement allows Lauren to

draw on strong family support, which would have

FAMM’s members have generously agreed to share their stories with the Court, but are identified here, unless otherwise expressly authorized, only by their first names.

been far more difficult to access from the prison yard.

Lauren’s mother and her mother’s husband took her

into their home and made sure she could attend all of

her required check-ins and urinalysis appointments

before she had her own car.

Most important, Lauren is able to spend time with

her son. While she was in prison, their relationship

was limited solely to video visits. Thanks to home confinement, Lauren can see him in person, spend quality

time with him, and, in her words, “simply be his mom

again.” She explains that “having the opportunity to

rebuild that relationship has been one of the greatest

gifts of home confinement.”

On home confinement, Lauren can also leave her

home for approved activities like work, doctors’ appointments, grocery shopping, and monthly social

passes. Thanks to her relative freedom to come and go

for work, Lauren was able to secure a full-time job in

warehouse management, giving her purpose and the

means to support herself and her son. More broadly,

being able to participate in everyday life again—even

simple activities like shopping or spending time in the

community—makes a significant difference in Lauren’s reentry process. For example, Lauren’s placement in home confinement has allowed her to reconnect with her faith by visiting her family’s local church

or by participating in services online each week—

something she could not do from prison.

Although Lauren will remain on home confinement under BOP control until 2028, her experiences

and opportunities in this form of prerelease custody

have been night-and-day from the confines of prison—

and she has used those opportunities to rebuild her

life, with her family’s support.

3. Kellon was sentenced to four years in prison in

2023 in connection with a conspiracy to distribute

drugs. He began earning time credits under the First

Step Act shortly after arriving in his facility, and, after participating in programming and work assignments, earned a transfer to a halfway house in June

2025. Without the First Step Act, he likely would have

remained incarcerated for another eight to twelve

months before becoming eligible to move to prerelease

custody.

At his halfway house, Kellon was subject to strict

supervision and a curfew. He was able to leave the

halfway house, however, to secure a job. In his words,

“[e]mployment became the foundation of my stability

and allowed me to begin rebuilding my life while supporting my family.” The halfway house also allowed

Kellon to finally obtain necessary medical care for a

torn Achilles tendon he suffered while in prison. The

care available in the community was significantly

greater than what he could access in prison, and with

the help of his case manager, Kellon was able to find

and begin treatment with a physical therapist.

In February 2026, Kellon transferred to home confinement. He continued his job, and the ability to work

consistently and earn “an honest income” helped him

maintain his sense of purpose. Home confinement also

allowed him to further rebuild a normal life: He was

able to spend holidays with his children, and even

small things like having privacy in his own space

made a big difference. He specifically cites as meaningful the ability to open a window and breathe fresh

air. That may seem like a small thing, but, as Kellon

explained, “in prison, you can’t even open a window.”

Looking back, Kellon describes the First Step Act

as an important tool that helped him reunite with his

family and begin rebuilding his life sooner than if he

had remained in federal prison. In his words, the First

Step Act’s time credits gave him a second chance by

shortening his time in prison and allowing him to get

a head start on the hard work of rebuilding his life.

4. Not everyone has an easy time accessing the

credits Congress granted them and to which they are

legally entitled under the First Step Act. Petitioner

Maxwell is one example; several of FAMM’s members

have faced similar barriers. These difficulties only underscore the importance of ensuring that eligible individuals have access to meaningful and timely judicial

relief to enforce the law.

David was sentenced in March 2014 to more than

17 years in prison after pleading guilty to one count of

conspiracy to commit mortgage fraud. His original

projected release date was in 2031.

During David’s incarceration, he devoted significant time to assisting others in the prison, including

helping them understand compassionate-release procedures, clemency applications, and other legal matters. He viewed this activity as part of his rehabilitation, and a way to put the knowledge he gained in

prison to service for others.

Thanks to David’s good work and commitment to

rehabilitation, statutory good-conduct credits reduced

his projected release to 2029. And after Congress

passed the First Step Act, David was able to participate in programming that granted him further credits

toward prerelease custody. Ultimately, he became eligible for placement in prerelease custody in October

2025.

Ironically, given David’s experience helping other

individuals with their own early release credits, he

had difficulty getting the BOP to honor his own. David’s case manager was very helpful and recognized

his positive institutional adjustment and his efforts to

help himself and others during his incarceration. But

broader administrative issues effectively prevented

David from getting the full benefit of the credits Congress intended. Indeed, one of David’s codefendants

was moved to prerelease custody almost a year earlier

than he was, despite their similar situations.

In October 2025, David’s daughter, son-in-law,

and grandson picked him up at the prison and helped

him move into a local halfway house, where he lived

in a dorm with eight other residents. He quickly secured a job and was able to begin making payments

on the restitution portion of his sentence. In his spare

time, he volunteered to clean the facility to stay busy,

rather than simply sitting on his bunk. For the first

time in over a decade, he was able to return to church.

David’s daughter, son-in-law, and grandchildren

helped him get a computer and a cell phone to help

with employment, appointments, check-ins, and staying in touch with friends and family, none of which

was an option in traditional incarceration.

Two weeks later, the Bureau of Prisons approved

David’s move to home confinement, where he remains

under the Bureau’s supervision today. In his words,

“the freedoms I value most [about home confinement]

are ordinary.” The first nights on home confinement

were strange because they were quiet: David had to

adjust to sleeping in a normal room, without guards

or staff waking him for an attendance count. Being

able to go grocery shopping, choosing what to eat, and

preparing a meal himself became some of the best

parts of home confinement, and small freedoms that

distanced him from his institutional life. So too, were

mundane tasks like showering alone, doing laundry,

or driving to work: Each was an opportunity to return

to normal life that had been denied in prison.

After more than a decade in federal custody, home

confinement is allowing David the opportunity to rebuild his relationship with his family. In prison, every

phone call automatically ended after 15 minutes; often, David could not call back, so conversations were

necessarily short and surface-level, or were truncated

by the prison’s phone system. But on home confinement, David can spend time with his family in person,

and can talk for hours: listening, offering encouragement, answering questions, helping where possible,

and simply being present. In David’s words, “those ordinary interactions,” impossible from prison, “help me

feel like a father and grandfather again.”

5. Annette, like David, had real difficulties getting

the BOP to honor her earned-time credits. A judge

sentenced her to 5 years in prison for her role in a drug

conspiracy. Annette was entitled to credits under the

First Step Act, but she experienced several delays.

She filed multiple requests with the BOP for administrative remedies, but they were repeatedly delayed,

rejected for technical reasons, or lost. She noted that

many women she met from other federal prisons experienced similar problems with earned-time credit

calculations and the inconsistent application of First

Step Act credits.

Ultimately, Annette received only 30 days in a

halfway house, but it gave her opportunities she never

had in prison. She was able to leave the halfway house

to go to church, go to the gym, and attend other approved appointments. Even being able to buy her own

clothes and do her own laundry—small, everyday

tasks—gave her a much-needed sense of dignity,

choice, and freedom after five years in prison.

Annette quickly secured two separate jobs, one at

a retail store and another at a nonprofit, and excelled

at both. In fact, based on Annette’s success and work

ethic, her manager urged her to refer other residents

of the halfway house so she could hire them, too.

After Annette’s short but transformative time in

the halfway house, the BOP approved her transfer to

home confinement for six months. Annette lived with

her cousin where she had her own bedroom and bathroom in a house near the beach. Even from home confinement, Annette had to check in frequently with

halfway house staff (answerable to the BOP), call

them regularly, and send photos from each approved

location when she left her home. And though she could

not simply walk to the beach whenever she wanted,

she often sat and read overlooking the ocean. In her

own words, “those quiet moments brought a sense of

peace and reminded me of what I was working toward.”

Despite all the difficulty Annette had in securing

her time in prerelease custody, her story has a happy

ending: In January 2026, she was released from custody entirely, although she remains on supervised release, answerable to a U.S. probation officer and ultimately to the sentencing judge. Today, she continues

to focus on creating a stable future and views home

confinement as an important part of her successful

reentry.

* * *

These stories are not outliers—they illustrate the

real and meaningful benefits Congress accorded eligible individuals when it ordered the BOP to transfer

them to prerelease custody. Thanks to that congressional mandate, each FAMM member had opportunities they did not when locked in federal prison. Cecilia

returned to school and started a business. Lauren

found steady work and reconnected with her family’s

faith community. Kellon rejoined his family months

earlier than he otherwise could have. And even where

the BOP resisted application of the credits that Congress guaranteed, as it did for David and Annette, prerelease custody still gave them the tools to reenter

their communities successfully once they were finally

placed in it.

In sum: while individuals in prerelease custody

under the First Step Act remain subject to BOP restrictions in halfway houses or home confinement,

and thus “in custody” for purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 2241,

their lives look much more like “freedom” than they

did in prison—making the denial of prerelease custody the proper subject of review in a federal habeas

proceeding. These differences make all the more apparent why individuals like Petitioner should be able

to challenge the BOP’s wrongful denial of legally mandated credits and prerelease placements in a habeas

petition under § 2241(c)(3).

CONCLUSION

Amicus FAMM respectfully urges this Court to reverse the decision below.

Respectfully submitted.