# Lopez v. Davis > Mediated Wiki article. Canonical URL: https://mediated.wiki/source/Lopez_v._Davis > Markdown URL: https://mediated.wiki/source/Lopez_v._Davis.md > Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lopez_v._Davis > Source revision: 1351957487 > License: Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/) 2001 United States Supreme Court case Lopez v. Davis Supreme Court of the United States Argued October 30, 2000 Decided January 10, 2001 Full case name Christopher A. Lopez, Petitioner v. Randy J. Davis, Warden, et al. Citations 531 U.S. 230 (more) 121 S. Ct. 714; 148 L. Ed. 2d 635 Case history Prior Affirmed, 186 F.3d 1092 (8th Cir. 2000) Holding The Bureau of Prisons regulation does not require consideration of the non-violent nature of the underlying conviction. Court membership Chief Justice William Rehnquist Associate Justices John P. Stevens · Sandra Day O'Connor Antonin Scalia · Anthony Kennedy David Souter · Clarence Thomas Ruth Bader Ginsburg · Stephen Breyer Case opinions Majority Ginsburg, joined by O'Connor, Scalia, Souter, Thomas, Breyer Dissent Stevens, joined by Rehnquist, Kennedy Laws applied Bureau of Prisons Regulations ***Lopez v. Davis***, 531 U.S. 230 (2001), was a [United States Supreme Court](/source/Supreme_Court_of_the_United_States) case decided in 2001. The case concerned the validity of a [Bureau of Prisons](/source/Bureau_of_Prisons) regulation which lowered prisoners' sentences for completion of a substance abuse program. The statute however restricted this credit to those who did not engage in a felony aided by a firearm. The Court upheld the regulation over the dissent of three Justices. ## Background In 1995, the Bureau of Prisons published a rule to implement "early release incentives".[1] Only prisoners who did not commit a "crime of violence" would be eligible for the program. The Bureau defined this to include a drug trafficking conviction which received a sentence increase due to the use of a weapon during the commission of that crime.[1] After split decisions by circuit Courts of Appeal over the vagueness of the regulation, the Bureau published a revised one in 1997. This gave broader discretion to the Director of the Bureau to grant these term reductions. Christopher A. Lopez applied for the program but was rejected. Lopez had been convicted of possession with intent to distribute while possessing a firearm at the time of his offense.[2] The Bureau of Prisons defined this a "crime of violence". The [United States District Court for the District of South Dakota](/source/United_States_District_Court_for_the_District_of_South_Dakota) reversed a decision by the Bureau of Prisons that Lopez would not be subject to term reductions.[2] Finding that underlying convictions that were "nonviolent" should be reconsidered for the program by the Bureau of Prisons, the District Court reasoned Lopez was a candidate for term reductions.[2] The [Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit](/source/Court_of_Appeals_for_the_Eighth_Circuit) reversed, and Lopez [appealed](/source/Writ_of_certiorari). ## Opinion of the Court ### Majority opinion Justice [Ruth Bader Ginsburg](/source/Ruth_Bader_Ginsburg) delivered the opinion of the Court, affirming the Eighth Circuit and finding Lopez ineligible for the program. Justice Ginsburg framed the question as whether the Bureau has "discretion to delineate...those whose current offense is a felony involving a firearm".[3] Ginsburg argued that the statutory language provided the Director of the Bureau of Prisons the authority to make these sentence distinctions as the text used the word "may" consider rather than "shall". Further, the argument advanced by Lopez would restrict the new 1997 regulation, which was intended to provide broader authority to the Director.[3] Having held the Bureau's interpretation of the statute as proper, the Court concluded by finding that Lopez was not eligible for the program. ### Stevens' dissent Justice [John Paul Stevens](/source/John_Paul_Stevens) wrote a [dissenting opinion](/source/Dissenting_opinion), joined by Chief Justice [William Rehnquist](/source/William_Rehnquist) and Justice [Anthony Kennedy](/source/Anthony_Kennedy). Stevens argued that the phrasing of "may be reduced" was a command by Congress for the Director of Prisons to consider cases where the underlying conviction was not violent.[4] He concluded that the Bureau was free to make these distinctions, so long as it held to Congress's intent which he saw as aiding Lopez's arguments. ## See also - [Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution](/source/Eighth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution) - [Appeal](/source/Appeal#Appellate_procedure) ## References 1. ^ [***a***](#cite_ref-BACKGROUND_1-0) [***b***](#cite_ref-BACKGROUND_1-1) [531 U.S.](http://supreme.justia.com/us/531/230/case.html) at 234. 1. ^ [***a***](#cite_ref-PRIOR_2-0) [***b***](#cite_ref-PRIOR_2-1) [***c***](#cite_ref-PRIOR_2-2) [531 U.S.](http://supreme.justia.com/us/531/230/case.html) at 238. 1. ^ [***a***](#cite_ref-DECISION_3-0) [***b***](#cite_ref-DECISION_3-1) [531 U.S.](http://supreme.justia.com/us/531/230/case.html) at 244. 1. **[^](#cite_ref-DISSENT_4-0)** [531 U.S.](http://supreme.justia.com/us/531/230/case.html) at 245. ## External links - Text of *Lopez v. Davis*, [531](/source/List_of_United_States_Supreme_Court_cases%2C_volume_531) [U.S.](/source/United_States_Reports) 230 (2001) is available from: [CourtListener](https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/118400/lopez-v-davis/) [Findlaw](https://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/531/230.html) [Internet Archive (docket files)](https://archive.org/details/micro_IA40385014_0399) [Justia](https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/531/230/) [Oyez (oral argument audio)](https://www.oyez.org/cases/2000/99-7504) v t e Federal Bureau of Prisons Administrative facilities MDC Brooklyn FMC Butner FMC Carswell MCC Chicago FMC Devens FMC Fort Worth MDC Guaynabo FDC Honolulu FDC Houston FMC Lexington MDC Los Angeles Metropolitan Detention Centers FDC Miami MCC New York FDC Oakdale FTC Oklahoma City FDC Philadelphia FMC Rochester MCC San Diego FDC SeaTac United States Medical Center for Federal Prisoners Correctional complexes Allenwood Beaumont Butner Coleman Florence Forrest City Lompoc Oakdale Petersburg Pollock Terre Haute Tucson Victorville Yazoo City Correctional institutions Aliceville Allenwood Low Allenwood Medium Ashland Atlanta Bastrop Beaumont Beckley Bennettsville Berlin Big Spring Butner Coleman Cumberland Danbury Dublin† Edgefield El Reno Elkton Englewood Estill Fairton Florence Forrest City Fort Dix Gilmer Greenville Hazelton Herlong Jesup La Tuna Leavenworth Lewisburg Lompoc I Lompoc II Loretto Manchester Marianna Marion McDowell McKean Memphis Mendota Miami Milan Oakdale Otisville Oxford Pekin Petersburg Phoenix Pollock Ray Brook Safford Sandstone Schuylkill Seagoville Sheridan Talladega Tallahassee Terminal Island Terre Haute Texarkana Thomson Three Rivers Tucson Victorville Waseca Williamsburg Yazoo City Penitentiaries Alcatraz† Allenwood Atwater Beaumont Big Sandy Canaan Coleman Florence ADX Florence High Hazelton Lee McCreary McNeil Island Corrections Center† Pollock Terre Haute Tucson Victorville Prison camps Alderson Bryan Duluth Eglin† Morgantown Montgomery Nellis† Pensacola Yankton Private facilities Adams County Big Spring D. Ray James Eden Giles W. Dalby Great Plains McRae Moshannon Valley Reeves County Rivers North Lake Taft Related List of United States federal prisons Communications management unit Federal Bureau of Prisons Program Statement Lopez v. Davis Cunningham v. Federal Bureau of Prisons National Institute of Corrections Special Operations Response Team † indicates closed facility --- Adapted from the Wikipedia article [Lopez v. Davis](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lopez_v._Davis) by Wikipedia contributors ([contributor history](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lopez_v._Davis?action=history)). Available under [Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International](https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/). Changes may have been made.