Barber v. Thomas

Background

Two federal prisoners challenged how the Federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP) calculates "good time" credit under the federal statute that allows up to 54 days per year for good behavior. The prisoners argued credit should be based on the sentence the judge imposed; the BOP computes credit based on years actually served and prorates the last year. Lower courts rejected the challenge and the Supreme Court granted review.

Reasoning

The Court’s majority (opinion by Justice Breyer) framed the core question as whether “term of imprisonment” means time actually served or the sentence imposed. The majority found the BOP’s reading the most natural: award up to 54 days at the end of each year actually served, set those days aside, then prorate the final partial year. The Court tied that reading to the statute’s language and purpose of rewarding behavior, rejected lenity and other interpretive arguments, and affirmed the Ninth Circuit. The majority gave a numerical example: a 10-year sentence yields about 470 days credit and about 3,180 days actually served under the BOP method.

Real world impact

The ruling affects federal prisoners statewide and nationwide because it affirms the BOP’s method; the dissent notes nearly 200,000 federal prisoners may be affected. The decision means some prisoners will serve months more than they would under the prisoners’ calculation, with corresponding fiscal costs. The Court left statutory wording unchanged, so Congress or the Sentencing Commission could alter rules if desired.

Dissents or concurrances

Justice Kennedy (joined by Justices Stevens and Ginsburg) dissented, proposing a different, more prisoner-favorable reading that treats each imposed sentence year as a 365-day administrative segment and argued the rule of lenity and lack of agency justification support reversing the BOP method.