The Federal Defenders of San Diego and NCLC submitted this amicus brief in support of the Ninth Circuit granting en banc review in United States v. Myers, No. 23-1034, 2025 WL 1300439 (9th Cir. May 6, 2025). Seven other organizations signed on: Family Assistance Program, Fines and Fees Justice Center, Juvenile Law Center, Prison Policy Initiative, Returning Home Foundation, United Church of Christ Media Justice Ministry, and Worth Rises.
The 2-1 Myers opinion held that, under the Mandatory Victims Restitution Act, the “gradual accumulation of cash deposits from family and friends in an inmate’s trust account” can be ordered to be turned over to the federal government because it qualifies as a “‘substantial resource[] from any source, including inheritance, settlement, or other judgment.’” Id. at *1 (quoting 18 USC 3664(n)). The amicus brief explains how the panel majority’s rule would inflict unnecessary yet wide-reaching harms on incarcerated people and their families. If this ruling stays, it would allow the Bureau of Prisons to seize meager sums that family members send to their incarcerated loved ones in order to pay off the incarcerated person’s restitution.
Summary of Argument Made in the Amicus Brief:
This case is not a one-off. If the majority opinion is not taken en banc, it would affect many, many more cases than this Court might realize. This brief explains how. It focuses on how much money goes into prison from friends and family—and how that money gets used.
As an example: It costs five cents a minute to use the federal prison electronic messaging system. Phone calls are six cents a minute. Video calls are sixteen cents a minute. Keeping in touch can quickly add up to $100 a month for people in federal prison; over the course of a decade, that’s $12,000 for keeping in touch alone. It’s family and friends who cover this cost. Prison wages start at 12 cents an hour.
Without this real-world backdrop, the Myers panel majority permits the government to take $1,233.73 accumulated over nine years from “small, periodic deposits from family and friends.” United States v. Myers, 136 F.4th 917, 921 (9th Cir. 2025). It holds this accumulated $1,233.73 to be covered by a restitution and fines payment mandate for when a person “receives substantial resources from any source, including inheritance, settlement, or other judgment,
See all resources related to: Criminal Justice, Equity & Racial Justice