(a) Upon direction of the Attorney General, the Director, Bureau of Prisons, may authorize the Warden to implement special administrative measures that are reasonably necessary to prevent disclosure of classified information upon written certification to the Attorney General by the head of a member agency of the United States intelligence community that the unauthorized disclosure of such information would pose a threat to the national security and that there is a danger that the inmate will disclose such information. These special administrative measures ordinarily may include housing the inmate in administrative detention and/or limiting certain privileges, including, but not limited to, correspondence, visiting, interviews with representatives of the news media, and use of the telephone, as is reasonably necessary to prevent the disclosure of classified information. The authority of the Director under this paragraph may not be delegated below the level of Acting Director.
(b) Designated staff shall provide to the affected inmate, as soon as practicable, written notification of the restrictions imposed and the basis for these restrictions. The notice's statement as to the basis may be limited in the interest of prison security or safety or national security. The inmate shall sign for and receive a copy of the notification.
(c) Initial placement of an inmate in administrative detention and/or any limitation of the inmate's privileges in accordance with paragraph (a) of this section may be imposed for a period of time as determined by the Director, Bureau of Prisons, up to one year. Special restrictions imposed in accordance with paragraph (a) of this section may be extended thereafter by the Director, Bureau of Prisons, in increments not to exceed one year, but only if the Attorney General receives from the head of a member agency of the United States intelligence community an additional written certification that, based on the information available to the agency, there is a danger that the inmate will disclose classified information and that the unauthorized disclosure of such information would pose a threat to the national security. The authority of the Director under this paragraph may not be delegated below the level of Acting Director.
(d) The affected inmate may seek review of any special restrictions imposed in accordance with paragraph (a) of this section through the Administrative Remedy Program, 28 CFR part 542.
(e) Other appropriate officials of the Department of Justice having custody of persons for whom special administrative measures are required may exercise the same authorities under this section as the Director of the Bureau of Prisons and the Warden.
[62 FR 33732, June 20, 1997, as amended at 66 FR 55065, Oct. 31, 2001]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
13
cases (
10 in the last 5 years), 1997–2024 · leading case:
United States v. Hashmi, 621 F. Supp. 2d 76 (S.D.N.Y. 2008).
United States v. Hashmi, 621 F. Supp. 2d 76 (S.D.N.Y. 2008).
“Because the BOP has an administrative remedy in place, See 28 C.F.R. §§ 501.2 (d), 501.3(e), the Government argues that the Defendant must first exhaust these remedies because of the Prison Litigation Reform Act (“PLRA”), 42 U.”
United States v. Reid, 214 F. Supp. 2d 84 (D. Mass. 2002).
“” 28 C.F.R. § 501.2 (a) ("National Security Cases.”
United States v. Zacarias Moussaoui (4th Cir. 2021).
“PER CURIAM: Zacarias Moussaoui appeals the district court’s order denying his motions to modify the Special Administrative Measures (SAM), see 28 C.F.R. § 501.2 (a) (2020), and to terminate those measures.”
Schulte v. United States of Am. (S.D.N.Y. 2021).
“2 Some of the described restrictions may relate to Special Administrative Measures (“SAMs”) restrictions that have been imposed on Plaintiff under 28 C.F.R. § 501.2 . Plaintiff has challenged the SAMs restrictions multiple times in his criminal case.”
Schulte v. Warden MAAT (E.D.N.Y 2024).
“Under 28 C.F.R. § 501.2 (a), the Attorney General may instruct the BOP to implement SAMs “to 1 Defendants for the FTCA and Bivens claims are David Denton, Jr.”
Schulte v. Denton, Jr. (E.D.N.Y 2024).
“Under 28 C.F.R. § 501.2 (a), the Attorney General may instruct the BOP to implement SAMs “to 1 Defendants for the FTCA and Bivens claims are David Denton, Jr.”
Schulte v. S. Ma'at (E.D.N.Y 2024).
“Under 28 C.F.R. § 501.2 (a), the Attorney General may instruct the BOP to implement SAMs “to 1 Defendants for the FTCA and Bivens claims are David Denton, Jr.”
Schulte v. United States (E.D.N.Y 2024).
“Under 28 C.F.R. § 501.2 (a), the Attorney General may instruct the BOP to implement SAMs “to 1 Defendants for the FTCA and Bivens claims are David Denton, Jr.”
Schulte v. United States Fed. BOP (E.D.N.Y 2024).
“Under 28 C.F.R. § 501.2 (a), the Attorney General may instruct the BOP to implement SAMs “to 1 Defendants for the FTCA and Bivens claims are David Denton, Jr.”
Schulte v. United States (E.D.N.Y 2024).
“Under 28 C.F.R. § 501.2 (a), the Attorney General may instruct the BOP to implement SAMs “to 1 Defendants for the FTCA and Bivens claims are David Denton, Jr.”
Schulte v. Warden, Metro. Det. Ctr. (MDC) (E.D.N.Y 2024).
“Under 28 C.F.R. § 501.2 (a), the Attorney General may instruct the BOP to implement SAMs “to 1 Defendants for the FTCA and Bivens claims are David Denton, Jr.”
Schulte v. Warden Metro. Det. Ctr. (MDC) (E.D.N.Y 2024).
“Under 28 C.F.R. § 501.2 (a), the Attorney General may instruct the BOP to implement SAMs “to 1 Defendants for the FTCA and Bivens claims are David Denton, Jr.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.