News for March 27, 2026: No Tolling of Supervised Release, Compassionate Release Exhaustion Update, and BOP Refusing to Update Law Libraries

Not much this week with favorable cases, but this Supreme Court decision could affect some of people serving sentences for supervised release violations. There is also an update on compassionate release developments.

Rico v. United States, 2026 U.S. LEXIS 1490 (U.S. Mar. 25, 2026)

Conduct After Supervised Release Expires Cannot Be Charged as a Violation

The Supreme Court made it clear: once supervised release expires, it’s over, and anything that happens after that cannot be turned into a violation, even if the person absconded earlier. In this case, the lower court allowed a new offense committed after the expiration date to count as a supervised release violation by claiming the defendant’s absconding “tolled” the clock. The Supreme Court rejected that entirely, explaining that this was not tolling, it was an unauthorized extension of supervision beyond the date set by the court.

The key issue was timing. The defendant’s supervised release had a clear expiration date. The government tried to reach past that date and pull later conduct back into the supervision period. The Court said no. The statute draws a hard line: courts can only punish violations that occur during the term of supervised release. Once that term ends, the court’s authority to treat new conduct as a violation ends with it. That rule does not change just because someone absconded before the expiration.

The Court emphasized that Congress already built a system to deal with absconding, and it does not include extending supervision after the fact. If someone disappears, the court can issue a warrant and later revoke supervised release, even after expiration, but only for violations that happened before the term expired, and only if the warrant was issued in time. What the government tried to do here was different: it attempted to treat new conduct after expiration as if it occurred during supervision. The Court made clear that the law does not allow that.

The broader point is this: the statute carefully defines when supervised release starts, how long it lasts, and the limited situations where it can be extended or paused. Absconding is not one of them. There is no hidden rule that keeps supervision alive in the background just because someone failed to report. And there is no authority to revive an expired term to capture later conduct. Calling it “tolling” does not change what it actually is, an illegal extension of punishment beyond what the judge originally imposed.

Bottom line:

If the conduct for the violation happened after your supervised release expired, it cannot be charged as a supervised release violation. Absconding before the expiration does not give the court the power to extend your term or reach forward and punish new conduct as part of supervision. The only thing the court can act on after expiration is conduct that happened before the deadline, and only if it followed the proper steps in time. Once that expiration date passes, the government loses the ability to turn future conduct into a violation, no matter how badly they want to.

COMPASSIONATE RELEASE UPDATE:

The requirement for exhausting administrative remedies for compassionate release has become a mess in the courts. The government has been making the argument that if the warden denies the request within 30 days, then the inmate must fully exhaust admin remedies (BP8 – BP11). Some courts have bought this nonsense, but quite a few have rejected it. One thing I noticed is that when someone appeals this, the government flips and admits that simply waiting 30 days from the request to the warden is enough, even if the warden denies it within 30 days. But this only comes to light if the person appeals. For an example of the government’s flip-flopping on this, see this case: United States v. Rojas, No. 25-12421, 2026 LX 107280 (11th Cir. Mar. 25, 2026).

FINAL WORDS:

I’m hearing from people at several BOP prisons that the ELL (Electronic Law Library) has not been updated since late 2025. It is supposed to be updated every month with new cases and changes in the laws and rules. In my experience with this issue, the Supervisor of Education is responsible for the ELL. While this person might not be the one updating it, they are the main contact person for problems with the ELL. If anyone needs a recent case that’s not on the ELL, I can print and mail it to you for a charge about what it costs me. Just let me know.

Payment Plans! Hire me now, pay over an extended time. I’ve partnered with Affirm to allow clients to hire me and pay their bill over an extended period instead of waiting to gather the full fee upfront. Court deadlines don’t pause while families try to raise money. This option allows cases to move forward when timing matters most.