15 Mar What It’s Like Litigating Against the BOP in a First Step Act Case
Litigating against the BOP in a First Step Act case is kind of like trying to hit a moving piñata blindfolded. Yufenyuy v. Warden shows why.
Litigating against the BOP in a First Step Act case is kind of like trying to hit a moving piñata blindfolded. Yufenyuy v. Warden shows why.
Most Americans want a judiciary independent from politics. But what about a judiciary that's independent from the government?
A federal prisoner wrote a letter to a judge to "keep [the judge] posted on [his] progress in prison. The judge's response? Motion denied.
The courts are unbalanced when it comes the experience of Federal judges with most having a prosecutorial background while few worked in legal aid.
Courts can't order the BOP to award partial eligibility for FSA Time Credits. But that doesn't mean the BOP can't do it anyway.
Even after winning on appeal, defendants face an uphill battle when their case returns to the judge who presided over it the first time.
Lallave v. Martinez is a court case on FSA time credits in which a federal judge does something they almost never do: admits his mistake.
Eleven top law enforcement officers told a court to "doubt" law enforcement and view their actions "through jaundiced eyes." It won't matter.
If you're looking for an example of judges legislating from the bench, look no further than First Step Act caselaw. It's everywhere.
Every month, federal courts issue decisions addressing how the BOP handles disputes over FSA time credits. The BOP wins almost every time.