Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/boundvolumes/529bv.pdf
Page Number: 771.0

529US3

Unit: $U56

[09-28-01 09:22:18] PAGES PGT: OPIN

696

JOHNSON v. UNITED STATES

Opinion of the Court

absent some textual bar, revocation of parole’s replacement, supervised
release, was meant to leave open the possibility of further supervised
release, as well.
“Revoke” is no such bar, and the Court ﬁnds no
other. Pp. 703–713.
181 F. 3d 105, afﬁrmed.

Souter, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Rehnquist,
C. J., and Stevens, O’Connor, Ginsburg, and Breyer, JJ., joined, and
in which Kennedy, J., joined in part. Kennedy, J., ﬁled an opinion con-
curring in part, post, p. 713. Thomas, J., ﬁled an opinion concurring in the
judgment, post, p. 715. Scalia, J., ﬁled a dissenting opinion, post, p. 715.

Rita C. LaLumia argued the cause for petitioner. With
her on the briefs were Leah J. Prewitt, David F. Ness, Jef-
frey T. Green, and Joseph S. Miller.

Paul R. Q. Wolfson argued the cause for the United
States. With him on the brief were Solicitor General Wax-
man, Assistant Attorney General Robinson, Deputy Solici-
tor General Dreeben, and Richard A. Friedman.*

Justice Souter delivered the opinion of the Court.
The issue in this case grows out of an Ex Post Facto
Clause challenge to the retroactive application of 18 U. S. C.
§ 3583(h), which authorizes a district court to impose an addi-
tional term of supervised release following the reimprison-
ment of those who violate the conditions of an initial term.
The United States argues that district courts had the power
to do so under the prior law, and that this cures any ex post
facto problems. We agree with the Government as to the
interpretation of prior law, and we ﬁnd that consideration of
the Ex Post Facto Clause is unnecessary.

I

In the Sentencing Reform Act of 1984, § 212(a)(2), 98 Stat.
1999, Congress eliminated most forms of parole in favor of

*Edward M. Chikofsky and Barbara E. Bergman ﬁled a brief for the
National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers et al. as amici curiae
urging reversal.