WASHINGTON, DC – U.S. District Judge Timothy J. Kelly has declined to issue a ruling in the case of 21 formerly condemned men whom the Trump administration is seeking to transfer to the United States Penitentiary Administrative Maximum Facility—commonly known as Supermax—according to The New York Times.
The sentences of the 21 men were commuted by President Joe Biden in December 2024, fulfilling a key campaign promise from the 2020 election. In an official statement at the time, Biden said, “I am more convinced than ever that we must stop the use of the death penalty at the federal level,” The Times reported.
President-elect Donald Trump responded on social media with a blunt message directed at the men: “GO TO HELL!” Once in office, Trump signed an executive order directing his attorney general to make greater use of the death penalty, calling it an “essential tool.” The order also specified that these 21 men should be “imprisoned in conditions consistent with the monstrosity of their crimes.”
Initially, the men were slated for transfer to various federal facilities. However, after Trump’s election, Attorney General Pam Bondi assumed control of the case. According to Judge Kelly’s opinion issued Tuesday, the men’s legal team argues that 20 of the 21 men are now being sent to Supermax solely due to political interference from the federal government.
In response, the men’s attorneys filed a lawsuit alleging that the Supermax transfers were unlawful. Attorney Carmen Iguina-Gonzalez, a member of the legal team, told The Times that the conditions at Supermax—particularly long-term solitary confinement—pose severe psychological risks. Officials themselves reportedly refer to the facility as a “clean version of hell.”
Judge Kelly, however, noted that the Bureau of Prisons provides an administrative process for challenging facility designations, and the plaintiffs have not completed—or even initiated—that process. “The Court cannot grant that relief—at least not now,” Kelly wrote, referencing the attorneys’ request for preliminary relief and their claim that the designation process was a “sham” intended to rubber-stamp preordained decisions.
The New York Times also reported that the plaintiffs raised concerns that some of the men have medical conditions that were not considered in the transfer decisions. While acknowledging past lapses in the federal prison system, Judge Kelly wrote that some of these issues may have been inadvertent.
Still, Kelly cautioned against further federal overreach. He noted that “the Court expects that the Bureau of Prisons… will follow what it maintains is the usual practice of not transferring Plaintiffs before their administrative appeals conclude.” He warned that any deviation—such as transferring men before those appeals are resolved or truncating the appeals process—could suggest undue political influence.
“Such a departure from the [Bureau of Prisons’] ordinary practice would support Plaintiffs’ argument that the designation process at issue here is hardly business as usual for the Bureau,” Kelly wrote, according to NBC News. “And it would raise serious questions about who is calling the shots: BOP or someone outside that agency.”
