D.C. Judge Blocks Transfer of Biden-Commuted Federal Death Row Prisoners to “Supermax,” Citing Lack of Meaningful Due Process
by Matt Clarke
On February 11, 2026, a D.C. federal judge issued a preliminary injunction enjoining the Trump administration from transferring 20 federal prisoners whose death sentences had been commuted to life-in-prison by former President Joe Biden (D) in December 2024 to the supermax prison in Florence, Colorado (ADX).
The Court determined that the prisoners would likely prevail on their claim that the outcome of the procedures used by the federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP) to redesignate them had been predetermined, violating their Fifth Amendment due process rights.
Then-President-Elect Donald Trump strongly criticized Biden’s decision to commute the death sentences of 37 federal prisoners to life-in-prison. On his first day back in office in January 2025, Trump issued an Executive Order instructing Attorney General Pam Bondi to incarcerate them “in conditions consistent with the monstrosity of their crimes and the threats they pose.” Bondi then issued an implementing memorandum titled “Restoring a Measure of Justice to the Families of Victims of Commuted Murderers.” The memorandum stressed the “security risks” the commutations “present because of their egregious crimes, criminal histories, and all relevant considerations” and included the unprecedented step of requiring review of the commuted prisoners’ BOP housing decisions by a Deputy Attorney General (DAG). The Plaintiffs’ initial BOP housing decision was rejected by the DAG. Soon thereafter, they were informed that they would be transferred to the ADX.
Aided by lead attorneys David Patton, Ian Robinson and Krystal Kilinski of New York City’s Heckler Fink LLP and attorneys from the ACLU and the University of Denver, 20 of the 37 affected prisoners filed a federal civil rights lawsuit challenging their placement in ADX and seeking to preliminarily enjoin the transfers.
The district court ruled that several of the Plaintiffs’ claims “are longshots at best” but they had shown “a likelihood of success on their claim that their transfers to ADX Florence violate the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause. This is because it is likely that redesignation was determined before their process even began, and that—despite their hearings and their appeals—they had no meaningful opportunity to challenge them. But the Constitution requires that whenever the government seeks to deprive a person of a liberty or property interest that the Due Process Clause protects, whether that person is a notorious prisoner or a law-abiding citizen, the process it provides cannot be a sham. In addition, such a deprivation of due process amounts to irreparable harm, and the balance of the equities supports relief.” Therefore, the Court enjoined the transfers to ADX while the suit proceeded.
In performing its analysis, the Court noted that ADX was supposed to only be used for prisoners “who, by their behavior, have been identified as assaultive, predacious, riotous, serious escape risks, or seriously disruptive to the orderly running of an institution” and this simply did not fit the records of many plaintiffs, some of whom had been housed on federal death row at USP Terri Haute for many years with no record of misconduct.
Especially persuasive among the evidence submitted by the plaintiffs were the admissions of BOP attorney Chris Synsvoll and other BOP officials that showed that “because officials with authority over BOP made it clear” plaintiffs “had to be sent to ADX Florence to punish them no matter what results the ordinary BOP process might have yielded,” their post-commutation redesignations were predetermined. Thus, they were not given a meaningful opportunity to be heard, a violation of due process per Matthews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319 (1976) and Aref v. Lynch, 833 F.3d 242 (D. C. Cir. 2016). See: Taylor v. Trump, USDC (D.D.C. 2026), Case No. 1:25-cv-03742.
As a digital subscriber to Prison Legal News, you can access full text and downloads for this and other premium content.
Already a subscriber? Login
Related legal case
Taylor v. Trump
| Year | 2026 |
|---|---|
| Cite | USDC (D.D.C. 2026), Case No. 1:25-cv-03742 |
| Level | District Court |