This man is a bus driver and grandfather. A Supreme Court ruling could reimprison him

Supreme Court Ruling Limits Compassionate Release Eligibility for 1997 Bank Robbery Convict

Anthony Bailey, 61, was released from federal prison in July 2024 after serving 27 years of a sentence imposed for his role in a September 1997 bank robbery and two carjackings in Indiana. A federal judge granted the release under the compassionate release statute, citing Bailey’s prison record and post-conviction conduct. Bailey has since worked as a city bus driver in Indianapolis and maintained family ties, including time with grandchildren.

On September 3, 1997, Bailey and two accomplices robbed a bank and then committed two carjackings. Court records state that the offenses placed multiple individuals at risk, including a school-age child. Bailey has described the events as actions he regrets and states will not recur. He received a sentence that incorporated stacked mandatory minimum penalties under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) for firearm use during the crimes, resulting in a projected release date in 2050.

Federal prosecutors have indicated they will seek to vacate the release order following a May 2026 Supreme Court decision that narrowed the grounds available under the compassionate release program. The Court held that sentence disparities arising from later statutory changes do not automatically qualify as “extraordinary and compelling reasons” for early release when the original sentence was lawful at the time of imposition. The ruling applies the statutory text that limits the program primarily to medical, age-related, or other individualized circumstances rather than across-the-board resentencing based on subsequent legislative adjustments.

Bailey’s attorney, Maryam Kanna, has argued that continued incarceration serves no public safety purpose given Bailey’s employment, lack of disciplinary infractions during most of his prison term, and family support network. A probation officer had previously indicated a recommendation to terminate supervised release early, prior to the Supreme Court decision. Bailey has stated he intends to comply with any court order while continuing to seek legal relief.

The Justice Department has not issued a public statement beyond routine court filings in the Southern District of Indiana. Spokeswoman Kelsie Clayton stated that the office communicates its positions through official documents rather than interviews.

Congress reduced certain mandatory minimum penalties associated with § 924(c) offenses in legislation enacted after Bailey’s conviction. Those amendments were not made retroactive. Congressional records from the relevant debates show that lawmakers weighed concerns about the finality of criminal judgments, the expectations of victims and sentencing courts at the time, and the administrative burden of reopening thousands of cases. Similar non-retroactivity provisions have appeared in prior federal sentencing reforms. The Supreme Court decision treats this legislative choice as binding for purposes of the compassionate release statute.

Bailey spent the majority of his incarceration at the federal prison in Terre Haute, Indiana, where he worked as a barber. His prison record included one minor infraction noted in filings. Prosecutors at the original sentencing described the 1997 offenses as involving threats to bystanders. Bailey’s current daily routine includes work shifts, family gatherings, and time with a four-year-old grandson.

Approximately a dozen other cases involving similar stacked § 924(c) sentences are expected to be reviewed in light of the Supreme Court ruling. Retired Judge John Gleeson, who has assisted inmates seeking relief under the program, has stated that many such sentences exceed those that would be imposed under current law. The Court’s opinion, however, requires individualized showings tied to the statutory criteria rather than sentence-length comparisons alone.

Bailey has said he is prepared for either outcome and continues to participate in family activities while the legal process continues. The U.S. attorney’s office has not specified an exact timeline for filing a motion to return him to custody.