Wilford v. Engleman (Amicus)

In June 2023, the Federal Bureau of Prisons (“BOP”) released Richard Wilford to home confinement pursuant to the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (“CARES”) Act. Mr. Wilford spent nearly two months at home reintegrating into his community. Then suddenly in August 2023—absent any alleged wrongdoing—BOP revoked Mr. Wilford’s home confinement and re-imprisoned him. Since then, Mr. Wilford has spent more than 16 months in prison, without any alleged violation or opportunity to contest his revocation.

In February 2024, Mr. Wilford filed a habeas corpus petition in the Central District of California arguing that revoking his home confinement without due process violates his constitutional rights. The Magistrate Judge issued a Report and Recommendation in June 2024, which recommended dismissing the petition on the grounds that (1) people do not have a liberty interest in their placement on home confinement and (2) in any event, courts cannot order people placed on home confinement as a remedy. Mr. Wilford objected to the Report and Recommendation.

On November 18, 2024, the ACLU and ACLU of Southern California filed an amicus brief. The brief explains that people on home confinement have a liberty interest akin to people on parole and probation. Thus, as multiple district courts have held, BOP cannot revoke home confinement without the level of due process the Supreme Court required to revoke parole in Morrissey v. Brewer, 408 U.S. 471 (1972) and analogous forms of conditional release in Young v. Harper, 520 U.S. 143 (1997).

Further, the brief explains that the Court can restore Mr. Wilford to home confinement. Courts cannot order a person placed on home confinement in the first instance—only BOP has that power. But where, as here, BOP has already granted home confinement, courts plainly can remedy erroneous revocations by restoring people to their lawful home confinement status. Moreover, the government’s view would permit untenable results: due process violations without a meaningful remedy. If this view prevails, BOP could arbitrarily re-imprison anyone and everyone on home confinement and, even if federal courts found the revocations unconstitutional, courts would be powerless to restore people to their lawful home confinement status.