Barber v. Thomas (2009)
- Docket
- 09-5201
- Decided
- 2009-01-01
Summary
Question: 1) Does the "term of imprisonment" in Section 212(a)(2) of the Sentencing reform act unambiguously require the computation of good time credit on the basis of the sentence imposed, rather than on time actually served? 2) If "term of imprisonment" is ambiguous, does the rule of lenity and the deference appropriate to the United States Sentencing Commission require that good time credit be awarded based on the sentence imposed, rather than on time actually served? Conclusion: Yes. Not answered. The Supreme Court affirmed the Ninth Circuit, holding that the BOP's method for calculating good time credit was lawful. With Justice Stephen G. Breyer writing for the majority, the Court reasoned that the statute's language and purpose supported the BOP's construction of the statute. Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, joined by Justices John Paul Stevens and Ruth Bader Ginsburg, dissented. He disagreed with the majority's interpretation of the statute, arguing that it would impose "tens of thousands of years of additional prison time on federal prisoners according to a mathematical formula they will be unable to understand."