Litigation Update: Joyce-DIbart v. Hughes

We’re excited to share an update on our pending appeal in the case Joyce-Dibart v. Hughes. This case is about checking the authority of the Illinois Department of Corrections to unilaterally decide how long a person must spend on supervised release.

What this case is about:

Under Illinois law, only a judge has the authority to impose a criminal sentence.

But for some people serving time in prison, the Illinois Department of Corrections decides to substitute its own judgment for that of the sentencing court. That’s what happened to our client Andres Joyce-Dibart. The IDOC increased the length of his mandatory supervised release sentence without notice, a hearing, or judicial approval.

Why we challenged this practice:

This case is not about excusing criminal conduct. It is about who has the power to punish. We can’t let the executive branch override sentences without going back to court. When that happens, people are held in custody longer than a judge ordered and basic constitutional protections, like the right to a fair sentencing hearing, disappear.

Where the case stands:

The district court refused to stop this practice, holding that Mr. Joyce-Dibart could not challenge it in federal court. We appealed that decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit.

Our opening appellate brief, filed on December 22, explains why this policy violates the Eighth Amendment (by keeping people in custody longer than their sentence) and due process (by changing sentences without notice or a hearing). The appeal is now underway.

We will continue to share updates as the appeal moves forward.