Menu
Close
Brief in Support of Petitioner
U.S. Supreme Court
In this amicus brief, we argued fugitive tolling is an impermissible exception to a jurisdictional rule and is not a kind of well-established tolling doctrine that supervised release statutes would have incorporated. Furthermore, the problem with adopting such an expansive rule is that there is no way of knowing when, or how, the rule is to be invoked. And if Congress could not have known that some courts would apply that rule to invent fugitive tolling, then those courts are making the law, not administering it.
We thank Vincent Brunkow and Katie Hurrelbrink of the Federal Defenders of San Diego for helping us file this brief.
Brief in Support of Respondent
U.S. Supreme Court
Are the portions of 18 U.S.C. § 3583(k) that required the district court to revoke supervised release and to impose re-imprisonment based on a finding by a preponderance of the evidence that respondent violated the conditions of his release an “unconstitutional and unenforceable” law?
OUTCOME: In a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court agreed with the Due Process Institute’s opinion and ruled in favor of Haymond. Read the opinion by Justice Gorsuch here.
Due Process Institute wishes to thank David T. Goldberg for his amicus support on this matter.