Mark Jordan

o My Family, Friends, and Community,

After 33 days in segregation following false disciplinary allegations, I have returned to the general population. The extended absence unfortunately resulted in the loss of my institutional work assignment, leaving my account depleted. I have no thing: no hygiene supplies, no basic food staples, barely any soap or toothpaste.

Our unit is scheduled for commissary this coming Wednesday, the final shopping period before services close for seasonal inventory. To bridge this gap and prepare for the weeks ahead, I am seeking financial assistance to cover basic necessities:
*Personal Care: Fundamental hygiene items
*Nutrition: Supplemental Foo d Staples
*Legal $ Family Contact: Phone and electronic messaging access to maintain contact with my family and continue my legal work
*
If you're able, even 20 dollars-30 dollars will make a real difference. I'm trying to survive, trying to prove my innocence, and trying to hold on to hope. Please help if you can. Share this post so others see it.

Details for sending funds:

*Via Pay Pal
*Via Western Union [https://www.send2corrections.com/cpay/us/en/web/send-to-corrections], Mark Jordan, Register No. 48374066

From the bottom of my heart, thank you for your continued support, dignity, and solidarity during this time.

www.send2corrections.com

Made in America: The Products of U.S. Prison Labor Are All Around Us A project by photographer Daniella Zalcman shows the casual prevalence of goods made by prison labor in public and private spaces.

This is the greatest thing to happen for federal level justice reform since I don't know when. And if McConnell should follow....Thank you Providence. Maybe justice will now have a better chance, if only slightly

BREAKING NEWS: U.S. Senator Lindsey Graham died Saturday after a brief and unexpected illness, his office said in statement posted on social media.

Graham was elected to the U.S. Senate in 2002. He has been a close ally of President Donald Trump and a longtime hawk on Iran.

As a member of the U.S. House in the 1990s, he backed policies aimed at isolating the country and limiting its missile and nuclear programs.

Substantive Rules in Disguise: Challenging BOP Policy Under the APA

The BOP's Policy Update

Over the past several months, Bureau of Prisons (BOP) Director William Marshall III has reviewed and updated a substantial number of Program Statements—the agency's central policy guidance documents.
The majority of these Program Statements pertain to the implementation of substantive rules required by law to be published in the Code of Federal Regulations (C.F.R.). Where this is the case, the Program Statement prints the “rules text” in bold type to differentiate rules from the non-bold "implementing text." Most Program Statements require each respective warden of a BOP facility to issue a corresponding "Institution Supplement" (or a "Complex Supplement" for BOP prison complexes) to provide local instructions for implementation. Even where not required, wardens will often issue a local Supplement anyway.
The formal revision of a Program Statement and the issuance of corresponding Institutional or Complex Supplements presents a host of legal concerns for the jailhouse lawyer monitoring regulatory compliance. This is particularly true in the area of enforcing statutory boundaries and ensuring agency compliance with key provisions of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), which imposes strict procedural requirements on federal agency rulemaking.

The Legal Framework: What is the APA?

The APA defines "rule making" as the "agency process for formulating, amending, or repealing a rule." 5 U.S.C. § 551(5). A "rule" is defined broadly to mean "the whole or a part of an agency statement of general or particular applicability and future effect designed to implement, interpret, or prescribe law or policy..." 5 U.S.C. § 551(4).
The BOP is an "agency" subject to the APA. See Clardy v. U.S. Bureau of Prisons, 930 F.3d 1235, 1239 (10th Cir. 2019); Ramer v. Saxbe, 522 F.2d 695 (D.C. Cir. 1975). See also Bush v. Pitzer, 133 F.3d 455, 457 (7th Cir. 1997) (holding that the BOP, as an agency under the APA, must publicize for notice and comment Program Statements that have legal effect, and must avoid making errors of law).

Notice and Comment Requirements

With very narrow exceptions, the APA requires federal agencies to follow specific informal rulemaking procedures before adopting a rule. This includes:
1. Publication of the proposed rule in the Federal Register with reference to the legal authority for the rule and a description of its terms;
2. Opportunity for public participation in the rulemaking through the submission of data, views, or arguments, to which the agency must give due consideration; and
3. Publication of the final rule with a general statement of its basis and purpose not less than 30 days before its effective date.
See 5 U.S.C. §§ 553(b)–(d).
Excepted in whole or in part from these requirements are rules involving a military or foreign affairs function (5 U.S.C. § 553(a)(1)), rules relating to agency management or personnel or to public property, loans, grants, benefits, or contracts (5 U.S.C. § 553(a)(2)), and "interpretive rules, general statements of policy, or rules of agency organization, procedure or practice" (unless otherwise required by law) (5 U.S.C. § 553(b)(3)(A)).
In close cases, federal courts have struggled to definitively distinguish interpretive rules and policy statements (which are exempt from notice-and-comment procedural requirements) from "legislative" or "substantive" rules (which are subject to them). To its credit, the BOP has adopted a fairly straightforward criterion for determining whether a particular rule is subject to notice-and-comment rulemaking. Under Program Statement 1221.66 (Directives Management Manual, Chapter 3.3.1 (9/15/97)), notice and comment procedures are required where a rule:
1. Is more restrictive on inmates or the public,
2. Imposes new restrictions on inmates or the public, or
3. Establishes new conditions or programs affecting inmates.

Challenging Invalid Rules

The APA provides that unless a person is given "actual and timely notice of the terms thereof, a person may not in any manner be required to resort to, or be adversely affected by, a matter required to be published in the Federal Register and not so published." 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(1). This includes not only substantive rules of general applicability, but also "rules of procedure, statements of general policy and interpretations of general applicability." Under 5 U.S.C. §§ 552(a)(1)(C)–(D), these are still required to be published in the Federal Register even if they are exempt from public comment rulemaking.
All of this matters because Wardens—through Institution Supplements—and occasionally the BOP itself—via Program Statements—often evade the APA's procedural rulemaking requirements by hiding substantive rules within non-rule implementing text. Substantive rules promulgated without the required public notice-and-comment procedures should be challenged as legally invalid.
Federal prisoners who identify substantive rules in the form of a Program Statement or an Institution Supplement's implementing text—especially if directly or proximately affected by the rule—should challenge it. This is done first by filing an administrative remedy complaint through the BOP's four-tiered Administrative Remedy Program (see 28 C.F.R. Part 542). Should the BOP fail to rescind or repeal the rule, the next step is filing an APA complaint in federal court.
Section 706(2)(D) authorizes federal courts to hold unlawful and set aside agency actions found to be "without observance of procedure required by law." The courts can also reverse any adverse action the BOP took against a prisoner pursuant to an invalid rule.

The Limits of Agency Authority

In addition, every BOP rule and agency action—regardless of whether it is substantive in nature or promulgated in compliance with the APA's rulemaking requirements—may only regulate matters over which the BOP has lawful constitutional and statutory authority. Rules may not be contrary to law.
Under 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(C), courts can review actions "in excess of statutory jurisdiction, authority, or limitations, or short of statutory right," while § 706(2)(A) permits challenges to actions that are "arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law."
In other words, absent inherent authority authorized by the Constitution itself, federal agencies like the BOP must have explicit statutory authority from Congress to regulate a subject matter and take action. (A different APA provision allows courts to compel agency action that has been unlawfully withheld, such as when a law requires the agency to take a specific action).
Furthermore, "not in accordance with law" means any law. There are many laws giving the BOP broad grants of authority, but that authority may be limited by other generally applicable laws that impose restrictions on the scope of agency authority or prescribe the manner in which the agency must proceed. (For example, while the BOP can build prisons under its statutory authority, in doing so it must comply with the Rehabilitation Act and environmental protection laws).

Conclusion: The Power of Accountability

By familiarizing yourself with the APA, the BOP's enabling legislation (the extent of its statutory authority to regulate), and other laws of general applicability with which the BOP must comply, each federal prisoner can play a part. Together, jailhouse lawyers can prevent the BOP from succeeding in its incessant attempts to expand its regulatory authority beyond legal limits, and further prevent the BOP and its officials from circumventing the stringent rulemaking procedures that the APA requires.

Mark Jordan 2026