Rational‐Basis Review of Good‐Time Credit Eligibility for Noncitizen Prisoners under the First Step Act

Introduction

Cheng v. United States is a Second Circuit decision addressing whether 18 U.S.C. § 3632(d)(4)(E)(i) of the First Step Act unlawfully discriminates against noncitizen prisoners with final orders of removal by denying them good‐time credits available to other prisoners. Plaintiff‐appellant Sheng‐Wen Cheng, a Taiwanese national convicted of pandemic‐relief fraud and subject to a removal order, sued the United States and various Bureau of Prisons officials. Cheng asserted violations of the Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses of the Fifth Amendment, plus a claim under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). The Second Circuit, in a per curiam opinion, affirmed the dismissal of Cheng’s claims.

Summary of the Judgment

The court held:

• Equal Protection: Federal classifications on alienage are subject to rational basis review. The distinction between prisoners who are subject to final removal orders and those who are not bears a rational relationship to legitimate governmental interests (preventing flight risk and ensuring full service of sentence by noncitizens who committed serious crimes).
• Due Process: Cheng has no protected liberty or property interest in the discretionary award of good‐time credits under the First Step Act.
• Administrative Procedure Act: Cheng failed to allege any discrete “agency action” unlawfully taken in promulgating or enforcing § 3632(d)(4)(E)(i).
• Result: The judgment of the district court was affirmed in all respects.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

• United States v. Lue, 134 F.3d 79 (2d Cir. 1998) – Federal alienage classifications receive rational basis review absent an intent to disadvantage foreign nationals at the state or local level.
• Mathews v. Diaz, 426 U.S. 67 (1976) – Rational basis review applies to federal distinctions between citizens and aliens in entitlement programs.
• Yuen Jin v. Mukasey, 538 F.3d 143 (2d Cir. 2008) – Federal alienage classifications do not automatically trigger heightened scrutiny.
• Jankowski‐Burczyk v. I.N.S., 291 F.3d 172 (2d Cir. 2002) – Under rational basis review, any conceivable legitimate purpose suffices.
• Demore v. Kim, 538 U.S. 510 (2003) – Detention and removal‐related distinctions serve an interest in ensuring appearance for removal proceedings.
• Skelly v. I.N.S., 168 F.3d 88 (2d Cir. 1999) – Federal immigration enforcement supports restrictions on alien benefits.
• Procedural and Substantive Due Process Cases:
  • Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539 (1974) – Good‐time credits may give rise to a liberty interest when statutorily conferred.
  • Board of Regents v. Roth, 408 U.S. 564 (1972) & Washington v. Glucksberg, 521 U.S. 702 (1997) – Requirements for showing a protected property or liberty interest.
  • Victory v. Pataki, 814 F.3d 47 (2d Cir. 2016) & Bangs v. Smith, 84 F.4th 87 (2d Cir. 2023) – Clarifying the “legitimate claim of entitlement” threshold for due process interests in prison credits.
• F.C.C. v. NextWave Personal Communications, 537 U.S. 293 (2003) – APA review requires a discrete “agency action” that is final and reviewable.

Legal Reasoning

The court’s rationale unfolded in three parts:

1. Equal Protection Analysis:
   • Classification at issue: § 3632(d)(4)(E)(i) distinguishes noncitizen prisoners with removal orders from all others for purposes of good‐time credits.
   • Standard of review: Federal alienage classifications—unlike state/local ones—are reviewed under rational basis. The disputed provision is a federal choice about credit eligibility, not a local scheme targeting aliens.
   • Rational basis: Congress could rationally decide that denying early release credits to removable noncitizens reduces flight and guarantees completion of their full sentences.
2. Due Process Analysis:
   • Protected interest test: To establish a procedural or substantive due process claim, a prisoner must show a legitimate claim of entitlement to a benefit (here, good‐time credits).
   • Statutory scheme: The First Step Act distinctly excludes final‐order noncitizens from credit eligibility; there is no ambiguity creating an entitlement.
   • Result: Cheng’s expectation of credits was at most a hope, not a protected statutory right.
3. APA Analysis:
   • Requirement: A challenge under § 706(2)(A) must specify final agency action.
   • Defect in pleading: Cheng alleged only a statutory classification, not any discrete rulemaking or adjudication by the Bureau of Prisons.
   • Result: No reviewable agency action was identified; APA claim fails.

Impact

Cheng v. United States confirms several important precedents and sets clear guidance for future First Step Act and alienage challenges:

• Federal alienage classifications continue to enjoy rational basis deference. Litigants challenging similar statutory schemes should expect courts to uphold distinctions rationally tied to legitimate legislative objectives.
• Prisoners lack a due process property or liberty interest in statutory good‐time credits where Congress has unambiguously excluded their category.
• APA challenges must target specific agency rules or decisions; generalized attacks on statutory language are insufficient.
• Correctional administrators and defense counsel now have authority to rely on § 3632(d)(4)(E)(i) when calculating release dates for removable noncitizens.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Rational Basis Review

A low level of judicial scrutiny. A classification survives if it is “rationally related” to any conceivable legitimate government interest.

Heightened Scrutiny

A stricter test (intermediate or strict). Not triggered here because the federal government’s alienage distinctions do not automatically warrant heightened review.

Protected Liberty/Property Interest

Under due process, only a “legitimate claim of entitlement” to a benefit (e.g., good‐time credits) can give rise to a protected interest—mere hopes are insufficient.

Final Agency Action (APA)

A concrete, reviewable decision by a federal agency. General enforcement of a statute does not qualify.

Conclusion

Cheng v. United States reaffirms that:

• Federal alienage classifications receive rational basis review,
• Exclusion from good‐time credits does not create a protected expectancy absent statutory ambiguity, and
• APA claims must pinpoint final, discrete agency actions.

This decision solidifies the government’s discretion under the First Step Act to withhold early release credits from noncitizen prisoners subject to removal orders and underscores the deference courts will afford to such legislative classifications and administrative enforcement.