ALERT UPDATE 2020 – WEEKLY REPORT U.S. Supreme Court and Circuit Court Wins
Edition: Week of June 16-20, 2025
SUPREME COURT WATCH
On Wednesday. The U. S. Supreme Court released five opinions. The only criminal justice related case decided involved a procedural issue for a prisoner's suit. However, Hewitt v. U. S., (No. 23-1002), which was argued way back on January 13, 2025, is now the longest pending case since oral argument (though there are other cases from the Court's January sitting also still pending). Esteras v. U. S., (No. 23-7483), which was argued February 25, 2025, is also taking quite some time. This Friday is the next announced Supreme Court decision day, and I think there is a decent chance that is when we will finally get both of these opinions.
CIRCUIT COURT VICTORIES: 10th Circuit Delivers Big Wins--United States v. Chavarria, et. al., (No. 23-2102)(10th Cir. June 16, 2025)– Defendants Jerrold Chavarria and Jerry Romero are alleged to have kidnapped and brutally murdered a woman in Eddy County, New Mexico. Instead of state kidnapping charges, Mr. Chavarria and Mr. Romero were charged with the federal crime of kidnapping resulting in death. 18 U.S.C. § 1201(a). But kidnapping is normally a state crime for a reason. Federal crimes require some sort of jurisdictional hook to sort the prohibited activity into one of the government’s enumerated and limited powers, such as its power over interstate commerce. The superseding indictment alleged that “in committing and in furtherance of the commission of the offense, [Mr. Chavarria and Mr. Romero] used a motor vehicle, a means, facility, and instrumentality of interstate commerce.” But it lacked any details about how this kidnapping affected commerce in any way. The district court dismissed the superseding indictment because it lacked an adequate nexus to interstate commerce. This Court agreed with the district court. Allowing the government to bring charges based on the use of any ordinary motor vehicle (here, a Jeep) to commit a purely intrastate crime would transform any crime that uses a vehicle into a federal matter. For this indictment to be valid, it must be true that every motor vehicle is a “means, facility, and instrumentality of interstate commerce.” The Court held they are not. That interpretation—unbound by a cognizable limiting principle—stretches Congress’s authority beyond the Constitution’s boundaries. The Court therefore affirmed dismissal of the superseding indictment.
United States v. Tyler, (No. 24-6035)(10th Cir. June 16, 2025)– Defendant Jonas Tyler appealed from his conviction and sentence stemming from the December 21, 2022 search of his car by the Oklahoma City Police Department. Mr. Tyler moved to suppress the evidence from the search, but when the district court ruled against him he entered a conditional guilty plea to one count of possession of a firearm by a previously convicted felon. In his plea, he reserved his right to appeal on the suppression issue. The district court sentenced him to 84 months incarceration. On appeal, Mr. Tyler argued that the government violated his Fourth Amendment rights by detaining him for longer than was reasonable. The Court agreed with Mr. Tyler. Accordingly, the Court vacated Mr. Tyler’s conviction and sentence and remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
OTHER NEWS“Bureau of Prisons Issues Directive to Fully Implement First Step Act and Second Chance Act.”
In a new one-page press release from the federal Bureau of Prisons titled "Bureau of Prisons Issues Directive to Fully Implement First Step Act and Second Chance Act." The release merits a
full read, and here are extended excerpts:
In order to restore integrity and fiscal responsibility to the federal prison system, the Bureau of Prisons (BOP) today issued a policy memorandum
to staff directing the robust and comprehensive implementation of both the First Step Act of 2018 and the Second Chance Act of 2008 — two bipartisan cornerstones of modern criminal justice
reform.
“This is the dawn of a new era, one in which the Bureau of Prisons will realize the full potential of the First Step Act and Second Chance Act,” said BOP Director William K. Marshall III.
“The comprehensive policy outlined today will eliminate barriers to maximize the availability of home confinement to those who qualify for community release under the First Step Act and
Second Chance Act. This change in policy will fully operationalize the laws as intended by Congress and ensure a smoother transition for many individuals to return to productive lives after
incarceration.”
The new policy announced today will have immediate and meaningful benefits. It will:
● Avoid wasting millions of taxpayer dollars on unnecessary incarceration;
● Reduce strain on prison bedspace and staffing; and
● Eliminate prolonged and unnecessary burdens on inmates and their families — particularly those with stable home environments and strong community ties....
Director Marshall continued: “This action marks a bold shift from years of inaction toward a policy rooted in public safety, fiscal responsibility, and second chances. By empowering the
agency to release more people who are ready to return to society, we not only save taxpayer dollars, we strengthen families, ease overcrowding, and build safer communities.”
Recent Executive Orders and circuit rulings have reopened the door for:
- § 922(g) firearm convictions (non-violent, non-drug priors); and
- Compassionate release motions based on non-retroactive § 403(a) stacking reforms.
Recent wins in the 3rd, 6th, 8th, 9th, and 10th Circuits show courts are rethinking prior convictions and excessive sentencing on § 922(g) convictions.
Please Provide:
- Contact’s name + telephone number
- Court of conviction
- Case number
We’ll notify your contact if relief may be available. Call: (832) 346-0220.
30 Years. Thousands Helped. Real Results.
We offer professional, affordable evaluations for:
- Direct appeals
- § 2255 / § 2241 motions
- First Step Act + Compassionate Release
- Earned time credit disputes
- Clemency + pardon requests
- Specialized State and Federal post-conviction motions
- Case number