Federal Bill Would Release Vulnerable People from Prisons to Help Stop Spread of COVID-19
A month ago, Congress gave the Department of Justice (DOJ) and Federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP) increased authority to reduce the federal prison population. On March 29th, Congress passed the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act (), providing DOJ and BOP with the ability to expand home confinement eligibility. Then, Attorney General William Barr 鈥渁pplaud[ed] the substantial steps taken鈥� by DOJ and BOP to 鈥溾�� in an April 3 memo.
听
Barr鈥檚 applause came too soon. In the weeks following his memo, DOJ and BOP have done little more than issue around who is eligible for release. Congress must intervene with the , which would address some of the uncertainty. The bill would provide to BOP on how to reduce the federal prison population in the midst of a 鈥渘ational emergency relating to a communicable disease.鈥澨� 听听
听
The Emergency Community Supervision Act (S 3579 and HR 6400) was introduced by Sens. Cory Booker (D-N.J.) and Kamala Harris (D-Calif.), and Rep. Hakeem Jeffries (D-N.Y.) last month. It requires BOP to immediately place vulnerable individuals in home confinement or other community supervision outside of prison. The bill identifies 鈥渧ulnerable individuals鈥� as those who are pregnant 鈥� like , who gave birth in federal custody earlier this month and then died from COVID-19 yesterday; those with underlying health issues; and those who are age 50 or older. These are the very populations that argue should have their sentences commuted by the president in response to COVID-19.
听
While Sen. Booker believes the federal government has 鈥渁n obligation to do everything we can to prevent the spread of this deadly disease, and that means moving certain incarcerated people to community supervision,鈥� DOJ and BOP are falling far short of this responsibility. Since Barr鈥檚 April 3 memo, the number of people released to home confinement increased by just, according to The Marshall Project. And with BOP twice last week on who is eligible for home confinement, it is unlikely this percentage will increase without Congress鈥� intervention. 听听听听
听
With , and a that BOP is not officially reporting, as well as 1,600 incarcerated persons and staff testing positive for COVID-19, there is no time for DOJ and BOP incompetency. Congress must go beyond the authority it provided to DOJ and BOP under the CARES Act and explicitly legislate reduction of the federal prison population, as Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee (D-Texas) called for during Friday, April 24鈥檚 on incarceration and COVID-19. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi then on MSNBC on Sunday. 听
听
Congress must advance the Emergency Community Supervision Act with the next COVID-19 relief package. of BOP from both sides of the aisle reveals no other choice. In addition to requiring BOP to release vulnerable populations to community supervision, the Emergency Community Supervision Act limits the use of pretrial detention and in-person supervised release. It also prohibits the use of incarceration for technical violations of supervised release. In addition to reducing the federal prison population, Congress should incentives for states to reduce their jail and prison populations. 听
听
Reducing jail and prison populations in the wake of COVID-19 is not a partisan issue. Groups across the ideological spectrum have asked all levels of the federal government to take action. At this moment, it appears that Congress is the only body that appreciates the life or death consequences of not decarcerating; that tens of thousands more people will die in jails, prisons, and communities without action. Congress can protect those lives by passing the Emergency Community Supervision Act when it legislates additional COVID-19 relief for the country.听 听听
听
听
听
Learn More About the Issues on This Page
-
Press ReleaseDec 2024
Prisoners' Rights
Criminal Law Reform
ACLU Sues Bureau of Prisons for Keeping People in Prison Longer Than the Law AllowsACLU Sues Bureau of Prisons for Keeping People in Prison Longer Than the Law Allows
WASHINGTON 鈥� A federal lawsuit brought today by the American Civil Liberties Union, ACLU of D.C., and Jenner & Block LLP challenges the Federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP) for unlawfully incarcerating people longer than the law allows under the First Step Act. The lawsuit contends that the BOP鈥檚 failure to implement the First Step Act according to its plain language violates the rights of thousands of people who should be returning to their communities and rebuilding their lives but instead remain incarcerated. Signed into law in 2018 by then-President Donald Trump, the bipartisan First Step Act was designed to reduce the population in federal prisons, reform extreme sentencing laws, and provide programming and reentry transition services to people in prison. Central to the First Step Act is a system of earned time credits, which allows people in prison to earn time off their sentences and time out of prison by participating in rehabilitation programs. Through the First Step Act, Congress unambiguously ordered BOP to move people out of prison when they meet certain requirements to use their earned time credits. Instead of faithfully following the mandatory law, BOP adopted a regulation treating the law as optional. As a result, thousands of people, who should already be back in their communities and with their families, remain in prison. 鈥淓very extra unlawful day our clients spend in prison is a serious injustice,鈥� said Emma Andersson, deputy director of the Criminal Law Reform Project at the ACLU. 鈥淚t is egregious that the Bureau of Prisons is imprisoning people for months longer than the law allows. The government must follow through on its legal obligation to get people out of prison on time and back into their communities, where they belong.鈥� Additional comments below from: Vanessa Crowe, plaintiff: 鈥淭ime is what I owed for my wrongdoing, and I have paid my time. But I should not have to spend more time in prison than the law allows. I often reflect on what I will miss during the months after when I should be out of prison. I will miss work and lose out on wages that would help me get back on my feet. I could be a tax paying citizen instead of a burden on society. But most of all, I will miss more precious time with my family. My family and I are ready to tum the page on this period in our lives 鈥� we are all ready to start a new life, a life with purpose, hope, and healing together. I want to start that life when I am legally entitled to start it-not five months later.鈥� Arthur Spitzer, senior counsel at ACLU of D.C.: 鈥淭here鈥檚 no excuse for the Bureau of Prisons to pretend not to understand Congress鈥檚 clear command that people who have earned the right to early release must be released. This law has been on the books for six years. The Bureau of Prisons has had plenty of time to understand it. Law enforcers should obey the law.鈥� Betsy Henthorne, partner at Jenner & Block: 鈥淚t has been six years since the First Step Act was signed, but despite Congress鈥檚 clear directives, the Bureau of Prisons continues to hold thousands of people in prison longer than the law allows. We should and do expect better鈥攊t鈥檚 past time for the BOP to ensure that those who have earned their release are able to return home to their families and communities according to the law Congress passed.鈥� -
Press ReleaseSep 2024
National Security
Prisoners' Rights
ACLU Statement on Senator鈥檚 Discriminatory Questioning of Civil Rights Leader Maya BerryACLU Statement on Senator鈥檚 Discriminatory Questioning of Civil Rights Leader Maya Berry
WASHINGTON 鈥� American Civil Liberties Union Executive Director Anthony D. Romero, released the following statement regarding Sen. John Kennedy鈥檚 questioning of Maya Berry, the executive director of the Arab American Institute: 鈥淭he American Civil Liberties Union condemns this discriminatory and vitriolic attack on Maya Berry, a renowned civil rights leader, and joins the chorus of voices from across the political spectrum in denouncing these remarks. 鈥淭o use a hearing about the disturbing rise in anti-Muslim, anti-Arab, and antisemitic hate crimes to launch personal and discriminatory attacks on an expert witness they鈥檝e invited to testify is both outrageous and inappropriate. This kind of racist rhetoric should be widely condemned. It has no place in Congress, or in politics. 鈥淢aya Berry is a courageous and compassionate leader who has spent her entire career working to strengthen our democracy and protect the rights of Arab American communities, and other vulnerable communities who face discrimination and targeting because of their ethnicity, race, or religion.鈥� -
Ohio Supreme CourtSep 2024
Prisoners' Rights
State v. MorrisState v. Morris
This case in the Ohio Supreme Court concerns the scope of the state constitutional right to counsel. The police in this case interrogated the defendant, Isaiah Morris, without mentioning his already-appointed counsel or asking him to waive his right to counsel. This procedural circumstance risks confusing criminal defendants and undermining their state constitutional rights. The ACLU鈥檚 State Supreme Court Initiative, alongside the ACLU of Ohio and WilmerHale, filed an amicus brief arguing that merely providing a defendant notice of Miranda rights falls short of the bare minimum requirements for a valid waiver. -
Oregon Supreme CourtSep 2024
Prisoners' Rights
Huskey v. Oregon Department of CorrectionsHuskey v. Oregon Department of Corrections
This case in the Oregon Supreme Court centers on whether Article I, Section 41(3) of the Oregon Constitution, which provides that Oregon prisoners lack legally enforceable rights to prison jobs and training, bars prisoners from collecting damages relating to lost prison jobs and training caused by the alleged breach of a settlement agreement by prison officials. The ACLU鈥檚 State Supreme Court Initiative, alongside the ACLU of Oregon, filed an amicus brief arguing that that plaintiff Arnold Huskey, an incarcerated individual whose identity was used in Department of Corrections training materials, is entitled to damages notwithstanding Article I, Section 41(3), because plaintiffs in contract disputes never have to show standalone legal rights to the damages they claim. Instead, they need only show that the damages were reasonably foreseeable consequences of the alleged breach of contract.