The Supreme Court waded into a prisoner’s challenge on Monday to his imprisonment under the First Step Act as he seeks a transfer to lower-security confinement, such as a halfway house, in the latest high court case over the 2018 criminal justice reform law.
The high court began its November sitting on Monday with oral arguments in Maxwell v. Dinis over whether William Maxwell, who is serving a sentence in a low-security prison in Texas for his role in organized crime and taking over a mortgage-loan company, can file a habeas corpus challenge to be transferred to a halfway house or home confinement under the First Step Act. A habeas corpus petition is a way for someone to challenge the legality of their imprisonment, while the First Step Act, signed into law in 2018, allows inmates to earn time credits for recidivism-reduction programming or productive activities, which can be used to secure early release from secure custody into halfway houses or home confinement.
Although the First Step Act is not even a decade old, it has already been the subject of multiple Supreme Court cases, including earlier this year. The most recent case, Rutherford v. United States, resulted in a 6-3 ruling that changes to mandatory minimum sentences cannot be considered retroactively when determining whether inmates are eligible for compassionate release. Monday’s case could have significant ramifications for prisoners seeking earlier transfers to halfway houses or home confinement.
Maxwell’s lawyer, Masha Hansford, argued that Maxwell’s challenge should be allowed to proceed in court, rejecting a lower federal appeals court’s ruling that he could challenge his imprisonment only if he sought full release, rather than transfer to lower-security confinement.
“Mr. Maxwell’s claim in this case is that he’s being held in prison in violation of federal law because the First Step Act requires his release from prison and transfer to home confinement or to a halfway house. That is a distinct and lower level of custody,” Hansford told the justices.
Hansford faced several questions from the justices over her arguments for Maxwell, with Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson questioning whether the high court should keep its ruling narrow rather than issue a blanket rule on when prisoners can file habeas corpus petitions.
“I guess I’m trying to understand whether we really need to use this case to define every circumstance in which habeas is appropriate,” Jackson said, noting that “the circumstances here are very narrow.”
Brian Barnes, the lawyer appointed to defend the lower court’s ruling tossing out Maxwell’s lawsuit, argued before the justices that Maxwell should not be allowed to continue his habeas corpus petition, because he is simply seeking a different form of confinement, rather than release.
“Petitioner isn’t suing for release but for a change in the location where he will serve the remainder of his prison sentence,” Barnes told the justices. “That places this case on the conditions of confinement side of the line and makes habeas the wrong vehicle for Petitioner’s claim. The parties treat as self-evident the difference between incarceration in a prison on the one hand and a halfway house or home confinement on the other. But the reality of the federal prison system isn’t so simple.”
The justices appeared skeptical of Barnes’s claims, with Justice Neil Gorsuch directly asking Barnes what would happen if they allowed Maxwell to continue pursuing his habeas corpus petition.
“I do think one consequence is, the next case you’re going to hear is a case where somebody is saying, ‘I’m entitled to be moved from a medium- or a low-security prison to a prison camp,’” Barnes said in response to the question, which prompted a skeptical response from Justice Sonia Sotomayor.
RELIGIOUS FREEDOM IN FOCUS AT THE SUPREME COURT WITH COLORADO UNIVERSAL PRESCHOOL CASE
The Supreme Court is expected to issue a ruling in Maxwell v. Dinis as soon as early 2027, with a decision as late as the end of June 2027. The eventual decision could open the floodgates to similar challenges from prisoners seeking a transfer to lower-security confinement.
On Tuesday, the justices will hear a major religious liberty case involving Colorado’s decision to exclude Catholic preschools from its universal preschool program. The eventual ruling in St. Mary Catholic Parish v. Roy is expected to have significant ramifications for how religious institutions can participate in public programs beyond Colorado’s universal preschool program.