Lopez also argued that the terms of who was eligible for the program should not just be on the terms of their sentencing, but rather they should include post-conviction behavior. Lopez was a very well behaved inmate and thought that because of this he should have his sentence reduced. The previous points alone would be enough to let the lower court’s ruling stand. This was not the main point in the case, however. The main point came in the wording of the statute that allowed for the early release of inmates. It says that inmates “may” be released prior to the end of their sentence. The court took that wording to mean that the prison also “may not” release a prisoner if it so chooses. Earlier in the statute the word shall was used to denote that the Bureau of Prisons must create a substance abuse program to allow for the early release of prisoners. The Supreme Court decided that since the word may was used that the Bureau had every right to categorize inmates and either grant or deny their ability to be released early from their sentence.

Rationale:

The rationale to make the decision in this case came from a statute stating that allowed the Bureau of Prisons to create a substance abuse program that would allow for inmates to enroll and if they passed the course they could be granted an early release from their sentence. The Bureau took advantage of this statute and created the program along with the regulations for it. The first of the regulations was to govern which prisoners were eligible to take advantage of the program. They wrote a regulation stating that only prisoners convicted of “nonviolent offenses” would be eligible to enroll and participate in the program. Drug trafficking, which was the crime that Lopez was convicted of, is not a violent offense by definition. However, one of the subsections of the regulation stated that “if the offender received a two-level sentence enhancement under the United States Sentencing Commission Guidelines Manual for possessing a dangerous weapon during commission of the drug offense the crime is to be considered one of violence.” At the time of Lopez’s arrest he was carrying a firearm. He didn’t use the weapon, but simply had it in his possession. This fact allowed him to receive the two-level sentence enhancement and therefore categorized his crime as a violent one. The court that handled Lopez’s appeal felt that the Bureau should only look at the offense that he was convicted for. The regulations of the release program had a clause that gave the Bureau discretion over which inmates were eligible for release and which weren’t. The court thought that because Lopez was a good inmate and had completed the substance abuse program that the Bureau should use its discretion and overlook the fact that he was carrying a weapon when he was arrested. The Bureau had previously decided that they would not allow prisoners early release if they felt that the prisoners would still pose a threat to society. Lopez was not considered a threat, but was not allowed early release because of his possession of a firearm. The eighth circuit court reversed the lower court’s decision and ordered the Bureau of Prisons to take another look at Lopez’s case. This case went to the Supreme Court because other circuit courts disagreed with the decision of the eighth court. During the Supreme Court trial the case came down the one very small word. In the text of the regulation two vital words were used; may and shall. The regulation said that the prison shall make a substance abuse program available to its inmates. It said that the Bureau of Prisons may choose to release prisoners up to one year prior to the end of their sentence. The justices of the Supreme Court found that since the word may was used in the documentation describing the release of prisoners that the Bureau did not have to grant an early release to Lopez. The only certainty in the regulation is that those convicted of violent crimes would not be allowed to be released from their sentence early. The Supreme Court affirmed the lower court’s decision and said that the Bureau had no obligation to review Lopez’s case. They said that the Bureau could decide which prisoners, among those who committed nonviolent crimes, would be released from their sentences. The whole case comes down to the fact that the regulation used the word may instead of shall. This use grants the Bureau the authority to use its discretion and decide which inmates are eligible to be released early. They don’t have to release certain inmates and they also have the liberty to keep inmates for their full sentence length. In this case the Bureau chose to create a category of prisoners not eligible for early release. The Supreme Court decided that the Bureau had every right to do this and that there was no problem with what they were doing.

Page 1 of Lopez v. Davis: Drug and Firearm Possession