Miles v. Bowers: When the BOP Tries to Rewrite Federal Law to Deny FSA Credits

Court of Appeals: The BOP Doesn’t Get to Change the Law Through Policy

The Bureau of Prisons does not have the authority to rewrite federal law through policy. It cannot reinterpret statutes in a way that contradicts what Congress actually enacted, and it cannot create rules that strip away benefits the law clearly provides. When the BOP denies or delays earned time credits under the First Step Act, that is not a matter of discretion; it is a legal issue that courts are now beginning to address.

That’s exactly what happened in this case, and the First Circuit just made it clear: when BOP policy conflicts with the First Step Act (FSA), the statute wins.

This case isn’t just about one guy’s time credits. It’s a roadmap for challenging how the BOP has been quietly undermining the FSA for years.

What Happened in Miles v. Bowers

Arthur Miles was sentenced in federal court and then sat in a county jail for about 15 months before being transferred to his designated federal facility. These delays happen often.

During that time, he worked a job in the jail, something the FSA explicitly recognizes as qualifying programming to earn time off a sentence.

Here’s the problem: The BOP refused to give him credit for that time.

Why?

Because of its policies, which say the exact opposite of the FSA statute, a federal law.

Specifically, the BOP argued:

• You can’t earn FSA credits until you arrive at a federal facility
• You can’t earn credits until you complete a risk and needs assessment
• Activities in a non-BOP facility don’t count

The First Circuit said: none of that is in the statute.

What the First Step Act Actually Says

The FSA is not vague on this point. It says:

• Prisoners “shall earn” time credits for qualifying programming once a sentence is imposed.
• Those opportunities must exist during your “entire term of incarceration.”
• Your sentence begins when you’re in custody awaiting transport, not when you arrive at a BOP facility.

The language matters. “Shall earn” is mandatory. “Entire term” means exactly that.

Where the BOP Went Off the Rails

The BOP created policies that directly contradict the statute. The BOP tried to say a sentence only starts when someone arrives at a federal facility. The court rejected that outright:

The statute says a sentence begins when someone is in custody awaiting transport, not upon arrival at the BOP.

The BOP also argued a federal prisoner can’t earn credits until after a risk and needs assessment. Again, the court shut that down: The FSA requires assessments for applying credits, not earning them.

That’s a huge distinction. The BOP tried to turn an administrative step into a legal barrier. The court said no.

Miles was in custody. He was working. He was doing exactly what the FSA encourages. The BOP said it didn’t count because it wasn’t in a federal facility.

Wrong.

The court said location doesn’t matter if the programming qualifies and can be verified.

The Core Holding: Policy Cannot Override Statute

The First Circuit laid it out clearly:

• The BOP’s regulation on sentence start is invalid
• Risk assessment is not required to earn credits
• Credits can be earned before transfer to a federal facility
• The BOP must make individualized determinations, not blanket denials

Agencies implement the law, they don’t get to change it.

This Is Bigger Than One Case

Let’s zoom out. This is not an isolated issue. The BOP has been doing this across the board with the FSA:

• Narrowing eligibility beyond what Congress wrote
• Creating internal policies that contradict statutory language
• Using administrative convenience as an excuse to deny credits

Miles v. Bowers exposes that pattern. And more importantly, it gives someone a way to challenge it.

Where the PSR Comes Into Play (And Why This Matters Even More)

Now let’s connect this to something I’ve been hammering for a while: The PSR is no longer just about sentencing. The BOP is using it to make decisions about:

• Classification
• Programming
• FSA eligibility

Under policies like Program Statement 5162.06, the BOP is now treating the PSR as a controlling document, even for conduct that was never charged or proven.

Here’s the problem: The FSA does not say the BOP can exclude people based on conduct in a PSR. Just like in Miles, the BOP is trying to do this anyway.

Same Pattern, Different Tactic. They’re adding requirements that Congress never included.

The Legal Strategy Moving Forward

Here’s what this case provides:

1. Challenge BOP Policies That Add Requirements. If the statute doesn’t say it, the BOP can’t invent it. That’s the takeaway.

2. Focus on Statutory Language. Courts are looking at: “Shall earn”; “Entire term of incarceration”; “Commencement of sentence.”

3. Attack Blanket Denials. The court made it clear that the BOP must do individualized determinations. If they’re automatically denying credits based on facility location, timing, PSR content, that’s a problem.

4. Use This Case as a Blueprint. Miles doesn’t automatically win credits. But it forces the BOP to follow the statute. That’s how you build a case.

Final Thought

The BOP will keep pushing policies until someone challenges them. Most people don’t. That’s why these policies stick. But cases like show what happens when someone does push back.

If someone has been denied FSA credits by the BOP, chances are, this isn’t about the law. It’s about the BOP trying to rewrite it.

If you or someone you know has been affected by a BOP policy that has excluded them from earning FSA credits, I can help. I work with attorneys across the country who handle these issues that can step in to represent clients. I also provide structured support behind the scenes to assist clients and their legal teams in preparing and organizing these claims.