The Supreme Court’s big decision in Loper Bright Enters. v. Raimondo, Nos. 22-451, 22-1219, 2024 U.S. LEXIS 2882 (June 28, 2024), will help some federal inmates get out of prison early. While this unintended result by the Court seems confusing to many people, those who have been doing postconviction work for any length of time, like myself, know that the Loper decision is going to help a lot of federal inmates get their prison sentences cut short.
In this seemingly boring case about fishermen and fishing regulations, the Supreme Court made an important decision affecting federal prisoners by overturning what’s known as the Chevron doctrine. Established by the Court in Chevron, U.S.A., Inc. v. NRDC, Inc., 467 U.S. 837, 104 S. Ct. 2778 (1984), the Chevron doctrine says that when a statute is ambiguous or not too clear, a court must defer to a federal agency’s interpretation of that statute. Here’s why it matters to federal prisoners.
The First Step Act of 2018 established credits that federal prisoners can earn to knock some time off their prison sentence and earn more time in a residential re-entry center (or halfway house) instead of prison at the end of their sentence. However, the FSA excluded numerous offenses, such as firearm offenses, from these credits. Specifically, the FSA says that if someone is “serving a sentence” for possessing a firearm in furtherance of a drug or violent crime, under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c), they cannot earn FSA credits. While that sounds straightforward, it isn’t. That’s because a § 924(c) sentence is consecutive to all other prison sentences and, by law, must be served first.
The big question under the FSA is whether a federal prisoner who has served their § 924(c) sentence and is now serving the other sentences imposed can qualify for FSA credits since they’re not technically serving the § 924(c) sentence now. The Bureau of Prisons (BOP) said they can’t because their policy is to aggregate all sentences for administrative purposes, so the § 924(c) sentence is always being served as part of the aggregate sentence.
When challenges were filed in federal courts about this, the government cited Chevron and said that the courts were required to defer to the BOP’s interpretation of the FSA and deny relief. Importantly, the government admitted that the § 924(c) sentence is served first, but the BOP’s policy trumps that under Chevron.
Today, the Supreme Court overturned Chevron, holding that courts must interpret the statutes, not a federal agency. This means the BOP’s twisted interpretation of the FSA doesn’t matter and it is up to the courts to decide whether someone is “serving” their § 924(c) sentence and therefore exempt from FSA credits.
I know that in cases I’ve worked on, we convinced the courts to stay the proceedings pending the outcome of Loper. The government did not oppose this because it knew that Chevron was the only thing preventing the court from granting relief. Now those stays will be lifted, and the court has authority to grant relief without deferring to the BOP.
Dale Chappell works with individuals, families, and attorneys on sensitive and high-profile federal cases, focusing on prison preparation, housing, and post-conviction strategy. He supports clients and legal teams with research, issue analysis, and drafting used in federal post-conviction matters, including § 2255 motions, appeals, sentence reductions, and related filings.
His work is based on nearly 17 years of experience and more than 450 published articles in legal publications focused on post-conviction relief. His focus is helping clients and their families understand how the system actually works and avoiding preventable mistakes.
Have questions?
Email Dale directly at dale@dale-chappell.com.
Leave a Reply