Dahryl Lamont Reynolds v. United States

Under 18 U.S.C. § 3583(d), a district court must impose mandatory conditions of supervised release and may impose additional conditions so long as they are (1) “reasonably related” to the sentencing goals of deterrence, incapacitation, and rehabilitation and (2) “involve[] no greater deprivation of liberty than is reasonably necessary” for those goals. The U.S. Sentencing Commission recommends several “standard” conditions that are routinely imposed on all federal defendants who are placed on supervised release. U.S.S.G. § 5D1.3(c). The standard conditions include a ban on communicating or interacting with anyone the defendant knows is currently “engaged in criminal activity.” Id. at (c)(8). But they also include a ban on associating with anyone the defendant knows “has been convicted of a felony”—no matter what the felony or how long ago it was committed—unless permission is granted by the probation officer. Id. This ban covers between 20 and 25 million people in the United States with past felony convictions who work, parent, caregive, hold public office, vote, serve on juries, and contribute to our society every day. And for many defendants, like petitioner Dahryl Reynolds, the ban includes family members, friends, neighbors, mentors, and casual acquaintances they interact with every day. Violating the ban can lead to reincarceration. The question presented is: Whether the standard condition banning association with all past felons is “reasonably related” to the goals of deterrence, incapacitation, and rehabilitation, and “involves no greater deprivation of liberty than is reasonably necessary” for those goals as required by § 3583(d).