Solitary Confinement and Special Housing Units (SHUs) in Federal Prisons

By Elizabeth Franklin-Best, Esq., and Christopher Zoukis, JD, MBA

“SHU” stands for Special Housing Unit — the federal Bureau of Prisons’ term for the locked, segregated units most people call solitary confinement, the hole, or, phonetically, “the shoe.” Every federal prison has one, and a person in it is in one of exactly two statuses: administrative detention, which is not punishment, or disciplinary segregation, which is.

Which of those two labels appears on the paperwork controls almost everything that follows: what property you keep, whether you can call home, whether you keep earning First Step Act time credits, how often your placement is reviewed, and how you get out. This page explains both, reproduces the review schedule and the property list from the Bureau’s own rules, and sets out what a family member can actually do while someone is down there.

Special Housing Unit facts

What it is	A housing unit where people are securely separated from the general population, alone or with a cellmate — 28 C.F.R. § 541.21
Two statuses	Administrative detention (non-punitive) and disciplinary segregation (punitive, imposed only by a Discipline Hearing Officer) — 28 C.F.R. § 541.22
Governing regulation	28 C.F.R. part 541, subpart B (§§ 541.20–541.33)
Governing policy	BOP Program Statement 5270.12, Special Housing Units, dated March 5, 2024; Change Notice CN-1 dated March 6, 2025. Rescinded PS 5270.11 (Nov. 23, 2016).
Statutory authority	18 U.S.C. § 4042(a)(2) and (3)
Out-of-cell exercise	At least 5 hours per week, ordinarily in one-hour periods on different days — 28 C.F.R. § 541.31(g)
Showers	Ordinarily at least 3 times per week — 28 C.F.R. § 541.31(f)
Formal reviews	3 work days (administrative detention only), 7 calendar days, then every 30 calendar days — 28 C.F.R. § 541.26
“Extended placement”	Continuously housed in SHU for 6 months or longer — PS 5270.12 at p. 19
How to challenge it	Administrative Remedy Program, 28 C.F.R. part 542, subpart B — 28 C.F.R. § 541.31(o)

Verified against the Bureau’s own regulation and Program Statement text, September 2026.

What “SHU” means in the federal system — and what it is not

A Special Housing Unit is defined in the regulation as a housing unit “where inmates are securely separated from the general inmate population, and may be housed either alone or with other inmates” (28 C.F.R. § 541.21). That last clause matters more than most people expect. Federal SHU cells are frequently double-bunked, and Bureau policy makes cellmate placement the default: “The Bureau works to minimize the risk of inmate suicide by ensuring each inmate has a cellmate whenever possible. Employees must place inmates in SHU with a cellmate, unless there are unique circumstances that warrant single cell placement” (PS 5270.12 at p. 12).

So “solitary confinement” is a description of the regime, not always of the arithmetic. What defines it is the restriction, not the count of bodies in the cell. Bureau policy defines restrictive housing by three elements together (PS 5270.12 at p. 4):

• removal from the general inmate population, whether voluntary or involuntary;
• placement in a locked room or cell, whether alone or with another inmate; and
• inability to leave the room or cell for the majority of the day.

That third element is the one that does the work. A person in a federal SHU is ordinarily in the cell roughly 22 to 23 hours a day, because the regulation guarantees only five hours a week outside it.

The Bureau also has to account for restrictive housing that happens outside a formal SHU. Any such arrangement “must be proposed by the Warden to the Regional Director, and ultimately approved by the Assistant Director, Correctional Programs Division (CPD), before activation,” and will be approved “only as SHU overflow for inmates in administrative detention or disciplinary segregation status.” Units, areas, or cells that meet the restrictive-housing definition “will ordinarily follow requirements of this Program Statement to the extent possible” (PS 5270.12 at p. 4). If your loved one is being held in a locked unit that nobody is calling the SHU, that provision is the one to raise.

Note the vocabulary the Bureau does not use. There is no federal “solitary confinement” status, no “the hole,” no “ad-seg.” The words that appear on the paperwork are administrative detention, disciplinary segregation, Special Housing Unit, and restrictive housing. Using the Bureau’s words in a written request gets a faster and more useful answer than using the ones from television.

The law behind the SHU: statute, regulation, and Program Statement

Three layers of authority govern the SHU, and they do not carry equal weight.

The statute. 18 U.S.C. § 4042(a)(2) and (3) direct the Bureau to provide suitable quarters and to provide for the safekeeping, care, protection, instruction and discipline of federal prisoners. That is the whole of the congressional authorization the Bureau cites for operating SHUs (28 C.F.R. § 541.20).

The regulation. 28 C.F.R. part 541, subpart B — sections 541.20 through 541.33 — is the binding rule. It sets the two statuses, the grounds for administrative detention, the notice requirements, the review intervals, the conditions of confinement, the medical and mental health requirements, and the release standard.

The Program Statement. PS 5270.12 is the Bureau’s staff manual. It is agency policy, not law. It reproduces the regulation and adds implementing detail — the forms, the approval levels, the property list, the single-cell procedure. Where the two conflict, the regulation controls; where the Program Statement adds a protection the regulation does not require, the Bureau has still bound its own staff to follow it, and a failure to do so is a legitimate ground for an administrative remedy.

Our standalone explainer of Program Statement 5270.12 covers the document itself, including its supersession history.

One structural point that trips people up: the SHU used to live inside the discipline policy. Until 2011, conditions of disciplinary segregation, administrative detention and protection cases were all in PS 5270.08, Inmate Discipline and Special Housing Units. The 2011 rewrite split them, moving special housing “into a separate program statement” (PS 5270.09 at p. 4). If you are reading an older reference that cites the discipline policy for SHU conditions, it is out of date. Discipline is now PS 5270.09; housing is PS 5270.12.

Administrative detention vs. disciplinary segregation

This is the distinction the whole page turns on. Both statuses put a person in the same physical unit, often on the same range, sometimes in the same cell. The paperwork is different, the entitlements are different, and the exit is different.

	Administrative detention	Disciplinary segregation
What it is	An administrative status that removes you from the general population when necessary for safety, security, orderly operation, or public protection. Non-punitive.	A punitive status, imposed only by a Discipline Hearing Officer as a sanction for a prohibited act.
Who can order it	Warden or shift supervisor can order immediate segregation; a Lieutenant’s or the Captain’s approval is required before placement pending investigation of a disciplinary violation.	Only the DHO, after a hearing.
Paperwork you receive	A copy of the Administrative Detention Order (form BP-A0308), ordinarily within 24 hours, stating the reasons — except when you are in pending-classification or holdover status, where no order is issued.	You are informed by the DHO at the end of the discipline hearing.
Length	No fixed term. Ends “when the reasons for your placement no longer exist.”	The term the DHO imposed — capped by severity level at 12 months (Greatest), 6 months (High), 3 months (Moderate).
Property	Ordinarily a reasonable amount of personal property and reasonable access to the commissary.	Property is impounded, except limited reading and writing materials and religious articles. Commissary privileges may be limited.
Programming	Access to programming activities to the extent safety and security are not jeopardized.	Participation in programming, e.g., educational programs, may be suspended.
First Step Act time credits	Bureau policy: a person in administrative detention “shall obtain FTCs if they otherwise remain in earning status under the policy.”	Bureau policy: a person in disciplinary segregation status “will not be considered to be ‘successfully participating'” — so credits do not accrue.
Early release from the status	Automatic when the reason ends.	The Segregation Review Official may release you early if you no longer require the status, after consulting the Captain and notifying the DHO.

Sources: 28 C.F.R. §§ 541.22, 541.25, 541.31(h), 541.31(n), 541.33; disciplinary segregation caps from 28 C.F.R. § 541.3; FSA credit rules from PS 5410.01 at p. 8; release procedure from PS 5270.12 at p. 20.

The First Step Act row is the one families most often do not know about, and it is worth a paragraph on its own. Bureau policy on time credits provides that a person “will generally not be considered to be ‘successfully participating'” while placed in a Special Housing Unit, then draws the distinction expressly: “Inmates in Disciplinary Segregation status will not be considered to be ‘successfully participating.’ Inmates in restrictive housing for Administrative Detention shall obtain FTCs if they otherwise remain in earning status under the policy” (PS 5410.01 at p. 8). A months-long administrative detention placement should not, under the Bureau’s own rule, stop credit accrual. If someone’s credit ledger stops moving during an administrative-detention stay, that is a specific, correctable error — see First Step Act time credits.

There is one more wrinkle. A Warden or designee may temporarily impose more restrictive conditions on someone in administrative detention — effectively holding them under disciplinary-segregation conditions before any hearing — where the person is causing a serious disruption, threatening life or serious bodily harm or property damage, cannot be controlled within administrative detention, or cannot safely be housed in the institution hospital. That status has its own paperwork and its own clock: it “must have their status reviewed and fully documented on a BP-A0321, Special Housing Unit − Temporary Restrictive Housing Order, every five days” (PS 5270.12 at p. 7). If someone is being held under stripped conditions with no DHO hearing in sight, ask specifically whether a BP-A0321 exists and when it was last reviewed.

Why people are placed in administrative detention

28 C.F.R. § 541.23 lists the grounds, and there are fewer of them than people assume:

1. Pending classification or reclassification. You are a new commitment awaiting classification, or under reclassification review. This includes newly arrived people from the bus, the airlift, and the United States Marshals Service (PS 5270.12 at p. 7). For many people this is the first federal cell they ever see — see your first day in prison.
2. Holdover status. You are in transit to a designated institution or another destination. This is why so much SHU time is invisible to families: a person on the road can spend weeks in holdover status in a series of institutions.
3. Investigation. Your presence in the general population poses a threat and you are under investigation, or awaiting a hearing, for possibly violating a Bureau regulation or a criminal law.
4. Pending transfer. You are awaiting a move to another institution or location.
5. Protection cases. You requested, or staff determined you need, administrative detention for your own protection. This is a large enough topic that it has its own page: protective custody.
6. Post-disciplinary detention. You are finishing a disciplinary segregation term, and returning you to the general population “would threaten the safety, security, and orderly operation of a correctional facility, or public safety.”

Two implementing rules constrain how those grounds are used.

The reason has to be specific and evidence-based. The Administrative Detention Order is prepared by a Lieutenant or other correctional supervisor, and “the specific reason for placement in SHU must be supported by objective evidence and clearly articulated in the narrative section of the ADO.” A new ADO is required whenever the status changes — for example, when a protective-custody investigation finishes and the status becomes verified or unverified. And “inmates will remain in SHU for no longer than necessary to address the specific reason for placement” (PS 5270.12 at p. 9). An ADO whose narrative says only “pending investigation” with no further detail is not what the policy calls for.

Post-disciplinary detention has a 90-day tripwire. Within 90 days of entering post-disciplinary detention status, staff “must ordinarily return the inmate to general population or request a transfer of the inmate to a more suitable institution” on form EMS-A0409. Beyond 90 days, the institution must generate a regional referral containing case-specific information stating why the person is not appropriate for return or immediate transfer, and the Regional Director must submit a recommendation to the Assistant Director, CPD, for concurrence — “and every 60 days thereafter.” This does not apply to pretrial detainees or to people in a Control Unit Program (PS 5270.12 at p. 8).

That 90-day provision is one of the more useful facts on this page, because post-disciplinary detention is where long federal SHU stays quietly accumulate. If someone has been in post-disciplinary detention for four or five months, there should be a documented regional referral and a concurrence, and it is entirely proper to ask for confirmation that both exist.

Also worth knowing: when considering approval for administrative detention pending investigation of a disciplinary violation, officials are told to weigh “the seriousness of the alleged offense, including whether the offense involved violence, involved escape, or posed a threat to institutional safety, employees, or the orderly running of the institution” (PS 5270.12 at p. 8). Not every incident report is supposed to produce a SHU trip.

The review clocks

This is the schedule the Bureau owes every person in a Special Housing Unit. It is the second most useful thing on this page after the property list, because when a placement drags, the missed review is usually the first documented failure.

Clock	What happens	Do you attend?	Source
Within 24 hours of placement	A supervisory official not involved in the initial placement ordinarily reviews and approves the placement decision	No	PS 5270.12 at p. 8
Ordinarily within 24 hours	You receive a copy of the Administrative Detention Order (BP-A0308) detailing the reasons — except in pending-classification or holdover status	—	28 C.F.R. § 541.25(a)
Within 2 work days (protection cases)	The Warden or designee, ordinarily the Captain, reviews whether continued protective custody is necessary	No	PS 5270.12 at pp. 11–12
Within 3 work days (administrative detention only)	The Segregation Review Official reviews the supporting records. Not counting the day you were admitted, weekends, or holidays. This review does not occur in disciplinary segregation status.	No	28 C.F.R. § 541.26(a)
Every 5 days (temporary restrictive housing only)	Status reviewed and documented on form BP-A0321	—	PS 5270.12 at p. 7
Within 7 continuous calendar days, then every 7 days	The SRO formally reviews your status at a hearing you can attend. Subsequent 7-day reviews are of your records, performed in your absence.	Yes — the first one	28 C.F.R. § 541.26(b)
Weekly	The SHU multidisciplinary team meets, reviews the population, and documents attendance on form BP-A1117	No	PS 5270.12 at p. 10
Weekly	Mental health employees and education employees must visit all inmates in the SHU	Yes	PS 5270.12 at p. 18
After every 30 calendar days of continuous placement	The SRO formally reviews your status at a hearing you can attend	Yes	28 C.F.R. § 541.26(c)
After every 30 calendar days of continuous placement	Mental health staff examine you, including a personal interview	Yes	28 C.F.R. § 541.32(b)
Every 30 days	If not restricted by a disciplinary sanction, you are offered the opportunity to make a social telephone call — within the first 30 calendar days of placement and every 30 days thereafter	Yes	PS 5270.12 at p. 17
Every 60 days (post-disciplinary detention beyond 90 days)	The Regional Director submits a recommendation to the Assistant Director, CPD, for concurrence	No	PS 5270.12 at p. 8
At 6 months	Continuous SHU placement becomes “extended placement,” triggering a multidisciplinary team determination of whether it is warranted	No	PS 5270.12 at p. 19
At 180 days from release	If you are still in SHU within 180 days of your release date, “options to release the inmate to less restrictive settings should be considered”; if none is possible, justification is documented and approved by the Warden	No	PS 5270.12 at p. 20

The Segregation Review Official is usually the Lieutenant responsible for supervising the SHU, under the Captain’s direction; the SRO does not have to be a DHO. The review must include a review of your SHU record (form BP-A0292), all available staff memoranda including Psychology Services, all available investigatory memoranda, and completion of form BP-A0295, Special Housing Review (PS 5270.12 at p. 10).

The multidisciplinary team is newer and is worth knowing about by name. It includes, at a minimum, the Executive Team, the Captain, Unit Managers, the Case Management Coordinator, the Health Services Administrator, and the Chief Psychologist or their designees. It meets weekly, reviews initial and ongoing placement, “determines the factors preventing the inmate from being housed in a less restrictive setting,” explores options for people pending return to the general population, and — for people with approaching release dates — “reviews options to prevent a direct release to the community from restrictive housing” (PS 5270.12 at p. 10). Asking, in writing, what the multidisciplinary team has identified as the factors preventing a return to general population is a far more productive question than asking when someone is getting out.

Life inside a Special Housing Unit

The regulation opens the conditions section with a standard: “Your living conditions in the SHU will meet or exceed standards for healthy and humane treatment” (28 C.F.R. § 541.31). What follows is the specific list.

Environment. Living quarters will be well-ventilated, adequately lighted, appropriately heated, and maintained in a sanitary condition.

Cell occupancy. Quarters will ordinarily house only the number of occupants they were designed for; the Warden may authorize more so long as adequate standards are maintained. As noted above, a cellmate is the default and a single cell is the exception. Placing someone in a cell alone requires the Warden’s written approval, immediately following the placement, and that authority “may not be delegated” below the Warden or Acting Warden. A Lieutenant completes form BP-A1121, Single-Cell Review Form. After hours or on weekends, the Captain and Chief Psychologist are contacted telephonically for recommendations and the Warden is contacted telephonically for authorization, with the form ordinarily signed no later than the next business day. During each shift, a Lieutenant verifies and documents that only people with Warden approval are celled alone, and the Institution Duty Officer reviews all single-cell forms during daily rounds. Single-cell placements are reviewed at the weekly multidisciplinary team meeting, with the rationale documented (PS 5270.12 at pp. 12–13).

Clothing. Adequate institution clothing, including footwear, with necessary opportunities to exchange it or have it washed. The alternate clothing/linen rules — paper gowns and the like — are tightly written and worth reading closely. The Warden’s written approval is required in advance and is non-delegable; the memorandum must carry, at a minimum, the signatures of the Warden, the Health Services Administrator, and a Psychologist, plus a written explanation. The status is reviewed every three days, and “inmates will not be authorized to remain in alternate clothing/linen for more than six days” without a new authorization. A change of alternate clothing is offered daily. It is authorized only when someone alters, destroys, or misuses issued clothing in a way that threatens safety or causes harm — and “alternate clothing/linen will not be used as punishment or during external transportation.” Absent rare or exigent circumstances, it is not to be used for people with serious mental illness, identified chronic or acute suicide risk, or anyone on suicide watch (PS 5270.12 at pp. 13–14). Our page on prison clothes and bedding covers standard issue.

Bedding. A mattress, blankets, a pillow, and linens, with opportunities to exchange linens. If the institution issues a combination mattress with the pillow built in, no separate pillow is issued. And this: “Employees may remove an inmate’s mattress during daytime hours as a ‘loss of privilege’ sanction imposed by the Unit Discipline Committee (UDC) or DHO. Removal of an inmate’s mattress is otherwise prohibited, absent life or safety concerns as specifically documented and authorized by the Warden or designee” (PS 5270.12 at p. 14). The discipline policy says the same thing from the other side: staff must ensure the mattress is returned from lights-off to lights-on (PS 5270.09 at p. 16).

Food. Nutritionally adequate meals (28 C.F.R. § 541.31(e)). Alternate meal status — the loaf, by whatever local name — requires the Warden’s written approval in advance, plus Health Services approval and a written explanation of the reasons. “After seven days, the inmate is removed from the alternative meal service or, if necessary, a new authorization is generated” (PS 5270.12 at p. 14). Compare with what people eat in federal prison generally.

Personal hygiene. Access to a wash basin and toilet; toilet tissue, soap, toothbrush and cleanser, shaving utensils and similar items; ordinarily an opportunity to shower and shave at least three times per week; access to hair care services as necessary (28 C.F.R. § 541.31(f)). Razors are controlled by SHU staff and only disposable razors are used (PS 5270.12 at p. 16). See showers and toilets for how this works in general population.

Correspondence, telephone, visiting and legal activities. The regulation routes each of these to the general rule: correspondence under part 540, subpart B, telephone under part 540, subpart I, visiting under part 540, subpart D, and personal legal activities under part 543, subpart B (28 C.F.R. § 541.31(i)–(l)). In practice the SHU is far more restrictive than that sounds. On telephone, the Program Statement is specific: absent a disciplinary restriction, “they will be allowed to make one telephone call per month” — access offered within the first 30 calendar days of placement, and every 30 days thereafter — and “this Section … refers to social calls, not legal calls” (PS 5270.12 at p. 17). Legal calls are governed by the inmate legal activities policy, and that distinction is the single most useful sentence in the Program Statement for a family trying to get a lawyer on the phone with someone in the SHU. See also inmate phone calls and visiting.

Staff monitoring. In addition to the unit officer’s direct supervision, qualified health personnel and one or more responsible employees the Warden designates — ordinarily the Institution Duty Officer — visit each SHU inmate daily, including weekends and holidays. A Lieutenant must visit the SHU during each shift. Mental health employees must visit all SHU inmates weekly unless more frequent attention is needed, and education employees must visit all SHU inmates weekly to address educational and leisure needs. Everyone required to make regular SHU visits must “provide for meaningful contact to the inmate population” (PS 5270.12 at p. 18). Program staff, including the unit team, “arrange to visit inmates in SHU within a reasonable time after receiving the inmate’s request” — which means a written request to staff is the mechanism that gets a unit team member to the cell door.

Duress buttons. Where present, they are for emergencies and life-threatening situations only, including health-related ones. Using one for anything else “is subject to disciplinary action” (PS 5270.12 at p. 18).

Staffing. PS 5270.12 requires that all SHUs with a population of more than 50 be staffed with a second officer on the Morning Watch shift (PS 5270.12 at p. 3) — a change introduced by the March 2024 edition. Employees assigned to the SHU must complete quarterly training before the start of each new quarter, regardless of how many times they have taken it, covering search and escort procedures, restraints, use of force, sanitation, emergency response, suicide prevention, working with mentally ill inmates, and guidance on pregnant and postpartum individuals (PS 5270.12 at p. 6).

What you can keep: the SHU property list

Personal property “may be limited for reasons of fire safety or sanitation” in either status (28 C.F.R. § 541.31(h)). In administrative detention you are ordinarily allowed a reasonable amount of property and reasonable commissary access. In disciplinary segregation your property is impounded except limited reading and writing materials and religious articles, and commissary may be limited.

The Program Statement then lists what “ordinarily” means in administrative detention. This list is the answer to the question families ask most: what does he actually have in there?

Item	Quantity allowed
Bible, Koran, or other scriptures	1
Paperback books	5
Prescription eyeglasses	2
Legal material	Per the inmate legal activities policy
Magazines	3
Mail	10
Newspaper	1
Personal hygiene items	1 of each type — no dental floss or razors
Photographs	25
Authorized religious medals / headgear (e.g., kufi)	As authorized
Shower shoes	1 pair
Other shoes	1 pair
Snack foods without aluminum foil wrappers	5 individual packs
Powdered soft drinks	1 container
Stationery / stamps	20 each
Wedding band	1
Radio with ear plugs	1
Watch (must not have metal backing)	1
Over-the-counter medications	2
Feminine hygiene products	Choice of tampons (regular and super), maxi pads with wings (regular and super), and regular panty liners
Transgender accommodations (binders, stand-to-pee cups, etc.)	Retained

Source: PS 5270.12 at p. 16. Razors are controlled by SHU employees; only disposable razors are used. The Warden may modify the quantity and type of property allowed, and may limit or withhold property for security, fire safety or sanitation. Unauthorized use of an authorized item may result in restriction of that item, and after numerous misuses the Warden may determine the item will not be issued in the SHU.

Two additional rules attach to this list. Reading material: “The inmate will receive a reasonable amount of non-legal reading material, not to exceed five books per inmate at any one time, on a circulating basis,” and staff “will provide the inmate the opportunity to possess religious scriptures of the inmate’s faith” (PS 5270.12 at p. 16). Medication: prescribed medications and medical devices “will be collected and provided to inmates as soon as practical.”

The transgender-accommodation line is the newest thing in the property list and has moved recently. It was added by the March 5, 2024 edition of PS 5270.12 “allowing transgender inmates to retain their accommodations (e.g., binders, stand-to-pee cups, etc.) at the Warden’s discretion.” Change Notice CN-1, dated March 6, 2025, then revisited that same provision — the CN states that it “removes language to ensure consistency with Executive Orders issued by the Executive Office of the President of the United States,” with deleted text marked by strikethrough, and it reprints section 13(h) with the transgender-accommodation bullet. The strikethrough formatting does not survive text extraction from the PDF, so the current operative wording of that one bullet should be read directly from the Bureau’s published PDF before anyone relies on it. See also the policy explainer on gender dysphoria management.

The commissary list for the SHU “is reviewed for approval and signed by the Warden” (PS 5270.12 at p. 16), which is why it varies from institution to institution. Compare the general population list on our commissary page — the SHU list is a fraction of it.

Out-of-cell time and recreation

The regulation guarantees “the opportunity to exercise outside your individual quarters at least five hours per week, ordinarily on different days in one-hour periods.” That opportunity “can be denied … for a week at a time by order of the Warden” if the Warden determines that your use of exercise privileges threatens safety, security, orderly operation, or public safety (28 C.F.R. § 541.31(g)).

The Program Statement adds constraints on that denial that are easy to overlook and useful to cite:

• Restriction or denial of exercise is not used as punishment.
• The Warden or Acting Warden may not delegate the authority to restrict or deny exercise.
• Exercise is restricted or denied “only when an inmate’s activities pose a threat to the safety, security, orderly operation of the institution, or health conditions of the unit.”
• The process is documented: a staff member recommends the restriction to a supervisor in writing, briefly describing the reason and proposed extent; the supervisor recommends to the Warden; the Warden approves, modifies, or denies. (PS 5270.12 at p. 15)

Separately, the discipline policy forbids using loss of recreation privileges as a disciplinary sanction against anyone already in a SHU — that sanction is available for general population only (PS 5270.09 at p. 16).

The Program Statement also pushes institutions to do better than the floor. “If weather, resources, and staffing permit, inmates will receive at least five hours of outdoor exercise periods per calendar week,” and where there is no cover against inclement weather, “appropriate weather-related equipment and/or attire will be made available.” Beyond that, “plans for increasing recreation time are developed locally by the institution to provide additional out of cell time,” weighing the inmate-to-staff ratio in the SHU, total SHU population, physical plant limitations, and input from the local union. Where an institution has the resources, “it should do so,” and the plan is memorialized and reviewed at least annually by the Warden (PS 5270.12 at p. 15).

That is a genuine local-variation point, and it is worth naming precisely: out-of-cell time above five hours a week is set by a local institution plan, not by a national rule. If you want to know what a particular SHU actually offers, the document to ask about is that memorandum. All out-of-cell time is recorded on form BP-A0292, the Special Housing Unit Record (PS 5270.12 at p. 18).

For contrast, our page on recreation in federal prison describes what general population access looks like.

Medical and mental health care in the SHU

Medical. “A health services staff member will visit you daily to provide necessary medical care. Emergency medical care is always available” (28 C.F.R. § 541.32(a)). People in the SHU may continue taking prescribed medications (PS 5270.12 at p. 18). See medical care in federal prison and the Patient Care policy explainer.

Mental health. “After every 30 calendar days of continuous placement in either administrative detention or disciplinary segregation status, mental health staff will examine you, including a personal interview. Emergency mental health care is always available” (28 C.F.R. § 541.32(b)).

The Program Statement’s implementing language goes considerably further, and this is where the strongest advocacy arguments live (PS 5270.12 at p. 19):

• A person identified by Psychology or Psychiatry Services as Care3-MH, Care4-MH, a psychology alert, or on the monthly Psychology Advisory List “should not be placed in Special Housing unless they present an immediate and/or serious danger to self, employees, or the orderly running of a Bureau facility.” A care level alone does not preclude SHU placement, but it changes the calculus.
• If such a person is placed in special housing, “Psychology Services will be notified and conduct a mental health evaluation within 24 hours of placement,” and will conduct a psychological assessment including a personal interview when administrative detention continues beyond 30 days, with similar assessments and reports at 30-day intervals thereafter.
• “If it is not possible to avoid the placement of an inmate with serious mental illness in SHU, a transition plan should begin immediately.” A multidisciplinary team is convened to consider all options: return to general population, transfer to another general population setting, transfer to a mental health psychology treatment program, or transfer to a psychiatric inpatient setting.

See the policy explainers on treatment and care of inmates with mental illness, psychology services, and secure mental health units, plus our page on mental health programs for inmates.

What long-term isolation costs — read from the Bureau’s own rules

We are not going to hand you someone else’s summary of the research literature. What we can do is point at what the Bureau has written into its own binding instructions, because a policy is a record of the risks an agency has decided it must manage. Read that way, PS 5270.12 concedes a great deal.

It treats a cellmate as a suicide-prevention measure. “The Bureau works to minimize the risk of inmate suicide by ensuring each inmate has a cellmate whenever possible” (PS 5270.12 at p. 12). Single-celling is the exception, requires the Warden’s personal, non-delegable written approval, and is re-examined weekly.

It defines a point at which the length itself becomes the problem. “An inmate is considered to be housed in ‘extended placement’ when continuously housed in SHU for six months or longer. Inmates with serious mental illness must be removed from SHU before they have been housed continuously for six months, unless they have extraordinary security needs” (PS 5270.12 at p. 19). The named examples of extraordinary security needs are a pending ADX referral, a pending FBI referral, or serious assaultive behavior — and even then, a multidisciplinary team must be convened and the determination documented in the Psychology Data System-Bureau Electronic Medical Record.

It requires weekly human contact from non-custody staff. Mental health and education employees must visit every person in the SHU weekly, and all staff required to make regular SHU visits must provide “meaningful contact” (PS 5270.12 at p. 18). Requiring that in writing is an acknowledgment that it does not otherwise happen.

It carves out mentally ill and suicidal people from the harshest conditions. Alternate clothing/linen is not to be used, absent rare or exigent circumstances, for people with serious mental illness, chronic or acute suicide risk, or anyone on suicide watch (PS 5270.12 at p. 14).

It tries to prevent release straight from a cell to the street. “Every effort should be made to avoid releasing an inmate directly from SHU to the community,” and inside 180 days of release, less restrictive options should be considered, with any failure to find one documented and approved by the Warden. “A clear plan for returning the inmate to less restrictive conditions will be developed and is ordinarily shared with the inmate.” Ordinarily, people nearing the end of their term will not be placed in SHU at all except where their presence in general population threatens safety, security, or orderly running (PS 5270.12 at p. 20). The weekly multidisciplinary team is charged with reviewing exactly this for people with approaching release dates (PS 5270.12 at p. 10).

Those are the Bureau’s own words, in a document its own staff are required to follow. When you are advocating for someone, they are better than an outside statistic, because they are the standard the institution has already agreed to be measured against. Our page on the death of Colorado corrections director Tom Clements and the solitary-confinement policy debate it triggered covers the public reckoning that helped produce these rules.

Applied Insight — Christopher Zoukis, JD, MBA, Managing Director: In a SHU advocacy matter we do not lead with how bad isolation is. We lead with the institution’s own paperwork: whether the ADO narrative is specific, whether the 3-day, 7-day and 30-day reviews happened and are documented, whether the 30-day mental health interview occurred, whether the multidisciplinary team identified the factors preventing return to general population, and whether the 90-day post-disciplinary tripwire produced a regional referral. A letter that names those documents gets read differently than a letter that describes suffering.

Protections for vulnerable populations

Pregnant and postpartum women. Women who are pregnant, in post-partum status, who recently had a miscarriage, or who recently terminated a pregnancy “should not be placed in restrictive housing.” In rare situations such a placement may be made “as a temporary response to behavior that poses a serious and immediate risk of physical harm.” That decision “must be approved by the Women and Special Populations Administrator, in consultation with the Bureau Medical Director, and must be reviewed every 24 hours.” The Warden must contact the Women and Special Populations Branch Administrator, the Bureau Medical Director, and the Correctional Services Administrator at Central Office (PS 5270.12 at p. 5).

Post-partum status is defined in the Program Statement as the 12 weeks following a pregnancy outcome — matching the statutory definition of “postpartum recovery” in 18 U.S.C. § 4322(g)(1), which is “the 12-week period, or longer as determined by the healthcare professional responsible for the health and safety of the prisoner, following delivery.” That statute, added by section 301 of the First Step Act, also prohibits the use of restraints on a prisoner from the date pregnancy is confirmed through the conclusion of postpartum recovery, with narrow exceptions for an immediate and credible flight risk or an immediate and serious threat of harm that cannot reasonably be prevented by other means — and even then, only “the least restrictive restraints necessary.” PS 5270.12 expressly incorporates these First Step Act requirements (PS 5270.12 at p. 3). See also the Female Offender Manual, the use of force and restraints policy, and our page on women’s federal prisons.

People with serious mental illness. Covered above: the presumption against placement for Care3-MH, Care4-MH, psychology-alert and Psychology Advisory List cases; the 24-hour evaluation; the immediate transition plan; and the six-month removal requirement absent extraordinary security needs.

People with disabilities. “Inmates placed in SHU will be afforded accommodations for disabilities according to the procedures outlined in the Program Statement Management of Inmates With Disabilities” (28 C.F.R. § 541.31(n); PS 5270.12 at p. 18). See management of inmates with disabilities.

Juveniles. Section 613 of the First Step Act enacted 18 U.S.C. § 5043, which prohibits room confinement of a covered juvenile “for discipline, punishment, retaliation, or any reason other than as a temporary response to a covered juvenile’s behavior that poses a serious and immediate risk of physical harm.” Staff must first attempt less restrictive techniques, including de-escalation and having a qualified mental health professional talk with the juvenile, and must explain the reasons for confinement and when release will occur. Where confinement is used, release must occur immediately once the juvenile regains sufficient control, and in no event later than 3 hours where the risk is to others or 30 minutes where the risk is only to the juvenile. If the risk persists past those limits, the juvenile must be transferred to another facility or internal location where services can be provided without room confinement. See juvenile delinquents.

Suicide risk. The Bureau maintains a separate Suicide Prevention Program policy, and PS 5270.12 routes conditions of confinement on suicide watch to it (PS 5270.12 at p. 14).

Protection cases. People placed in the SHU for their own safety are governed by 28 C.F.R. §§ 541.27–541.30 and by the PREA standard at 28 C.F.R. § 115.43. Because that is a distinct problem with a distinct cost, it has its own page: protective custody.

People with contagious disease. The Program Statement routes suspected or confirmed contagious disease cases to the Intake Screening, Infectious Disease Management, and Patient Care policies and, where applicable, pandemic plans (PS 5270.12 at p. 4) — the SHU is not supposed to be the medical isolation unit by default.

Beyond the SHU: SMU, Control Unit, and ADX

The Special Housing Unit is short-to-medium-term housing inside an ordinary institution. Three other tiers exist for longer-term restrictive placement, each with its own regulation, its own hearing, and its own appeal route. Confusing them is common, and it matters, because the appeal goes to a different place in each one.

Special Management Units

A Special Management Unit is a designated program at a specific institution for people whose “interaction requires greater management.” It is governed by Program Statement 5217.02, dated August 9, 2016, which rescinded PS 5217.01.

SMU designation is expressly non-punitive. Referral criteria include participating in or leading disruptive group or gang-related activity, a history of serious or disruptive disciplinary infractions, committing a 100-level prohibited act after being classified as a member of a disruptive group, participating in or organizing group misconduct that adversely affected orderly operations, or otherwise being associated with activity requiring greater management of interactions. The person must have at least 24 months left on the sentence (PS 5217.02 at p. 3).

The process is a hearing, not a disciplinary proceeding. The Unit Team presents a referral to the Warden; if approved it goes to the Regional Director; a copy goes to Psychology Services to review whether mental health concerns preclude placement; and if nothing precludes it, the Regional Director appoints a Hearing Administrator who is trained and certified as a DHO, is an impartial decision-maker, and was not a witness or victim in any relevant disciplinary action. Unit team staff deliver form BP-A0935, the pre-hearing notice, at least 24 hours before the hearing, reading it verbatim if the person is illiterate and arranging translation if the person does not speak English. A non-probationary staff member is available to help compile documentary evidence and written witness statements (PS 5217.02 at p. 4).

The decision travels from the Hearing Administrator (form BP-A0936) to the Regional Director to the Designation and Sentence Computation Center, which reviews Central Inmate Monitoring assignments — so that separatees are not designated to the same SMU without Central Office concurrence — and selects the unit. Appeal goes through the Administrative Remedy Program directly to the Office of General Counsel, and “an inmate’s appeal of the decision or the Hearing Administrator’s findings does not delay designation and transfer to a SMU” (PS 5217.02 at p. 5).

The program runs in three levels. Conditions include at least five hours of out-of-cell exercise per week ordinarily in one-hour periods, shower and shave at least three times a week, a minimum of two completed telephone calls per month unless restricted by discipline, daily medical visits, and a mental health evaluation every 30 days; staff conduct a 30-day conditions review on form BP-A0951 (PS 5217.02 at pp. 7–8). Level One programming assessment occurs within the first 28 days of arrival, and Level One residents are reviewed at least every 90 days thereafter.

There is an internal inconsistency in the Program Statement about how long the program takes, and we flag it rather than reconcile it: the Purpose and Scope section says “inmates are expected to complete the SMU program in approximately 12 months” (PS 5217.02 at p. 1), while the Program Structure section says “completion of all levels is expected within 9 to 13 months,” broken out as Level One 6–8 months, Level Two 2–3 months, Level Three 1–2 months (PS 5217.02 at p. 9). Both figures are in the current published document.

Our explainer on Special Management Units covers the policy in full.

Control Unit Programs

A Control Unit is the most restrictive designated program in the Bureau, governed by Program Statement 5212.07 (Feb. 20, 2001) and by 28 C.F.R. §§ 541.40–541.50. It is for people “who are unable to function in a less restrictive environment without being a threat to others or to the orderly operation of the institution” (PS 5212.07 at p. 1).

Distinctive features:

• Out-of-cell recreation is a minimum of seven hours weekly — more than the SHU or SMU floor — and the Warden may authorize more, an authority that cannot be delegated below Acting Warden (PS 5212.07 at p. 12).
• On admission, staff must notify the person of “unit status” — the projected duration of confinement in the control unit — determined primarily by the nature of the acts that led to placement (PS 5212.07 at p. 16).
• A Hearing Administrator decides placement. The person may appeal to the Executive Panel — composed of the Regional Director for the region where the control unit is located and the Assistant Director, Correctional Programs Division — and that appeal “must be filed within five working days of the inmate’s receipt of the Hearing Administrator’s decision.” The Hearing Administrator sends the decision and supporting documentation to the Executive Panel, ordinarily within 20 working days after the hearing (PS 5212.07 at p. 10).
• “At least once every 60 to 90 days, the Executive Panel shall review the status of an inmate in a control unit to determine the inmate’s readiness for release from the Unit” (PS 5212.07 at p. 20).
• Appeals of Executive Panel reviews of control unit placement are filed directly with the General Counsel (28 C.F.R. § 542.14(d)(3)).

See our Control Unit Programs explainer.

ADX and administrative-security institutions

USP Florence ADMAX in Florence, Colorado is the Bureau’s administrative-maximum penitentiary — BOP’s own facility record describes it as “an administrative security U.S. penitentiary.” Administrative facilities are the Bureau’s catch-all security category, holding people with special management needs regardless of ordinary custody scoring. Our pages on administrative security prisons and federal prison security levels explain the classification system, and Communications Management Units covers a fourth restrictive tier focused on monitoring rather than isolation.

On the constitutional question, the controlling case is Wilkinson v. Austin, 545 U.S. 209 (2005). The Supreme Court held that assignment to a supermax facility can create a protected liberty interest — “While any of these conditions standing alone might not be sufficient to create a liberty interest, taken together they impose an atypical and significant hardship within the correctional context” — but also held that the process due is modest: “notice of the factual basis leading to consideration for OSP placement and a fair opportunity for rebuttal,” plus “a short statement of reasons” for the placement recommendation, satisfies due process. The Court emphasized that “courts must give substantial deference to prison management decisions.”

How the four tiers compare

	SHU	SMU	Control Unit	ADX / administrative security
Governing policy	PS 5270.12	PS 5217.02	PS 5212.07	Designation policy, PS 5100.08
Regulation	28 C.F.R. §§ 541.20–.33	—	28 C.F.R. §§ 541.40–.50	28 C.F.R. part 524
Punitive?	Only in disciplinary segregation status	No — expressly non-punitive	No	No — a security designation
Located	At every institution	At designated institutions selected by the DSCC	At designated institutions	Florence, Colorado
Minimum out-of-cell exercise	5 hrs/week	5 hrs/week	7 hrs/week	Per institution
Expected duration	No fixed term; “extended placement” at 6 months	~9–13 months across 3 levels (policy also says ~12 months)	Projected “unit status” given on admission	Indefinite
Reviews	3-day, 7-day, 30-day by the SRO	30-day conditions review; level reviews at least every 90 days	Executive Panel at least every 60–90 days	Program review
Appeal route	BP-9 → BP-10 → BP-11	Administrative Remedy directly to the Office of General Counsel	Directly to the General Counsel	BP-9 → BP-10 → BP-11

What changed in the SHU policy

PS 5270.12 replaced PS 5270.11 on March 5, 2024, and the list of changes is the closest thing to an official statement of what was wrong before (PS 5270.12 at pp. 2–3):

• Guidance added for the Special Confinement Unit to follow its Institution Supplement requirements;
• All SHUs with a population over 50 must now be staffed with a second officer on Morning Watch;
• New guidance on the placement of pregnant women in the SHU;
• Updated required SHU training;
• Health Services must now be notified of all new arrivals to the SHU;
• The review-of-placement section was rewritten to add multidisciplinary team requirements;
• New requirements for placing someone in single-cell status;
• New guidance where cover is not provided against inclement weather during exercise;
• Mental health and education employees must now visit all SHU inmates at least weekly, and all staff making regular SHU visits must provide “meaningful contact”;
• A definition of extended restrictive housing was added to the medical and mental health section;
• A new “Special Accountability” section on documenting observation of people in continuous locked-down status;
• Two new forms: BP-A1117 (Multidisciplinary Team Review) and BP-A1121 (Single Cell Review);
• The First Step Act’s section 301 requirements, codified at 18 U.S.C. § 4322, on placement and restraints during and after pregnancy, miscarriage, and pregnancy termination.

Change Notice CN-1 issued March 6, 2025, addressing section 13(h) — the personal property provision covering transgender accommodations — and stating that it “removes language to ensure consistency with Executive Orders issued by the Executive Office of the President of the United States.” As noted above, the operative wording of that bullet should be read from the published PDF.

The First Step Act reached restrictive housing in two concrete places, and it is worth being precise about them rather than describing the Act in general terms. Section 301 produced 18 U.S.C. § 4322 (restraints during pregnancy and postpartum recovery), which PS 5270.12 now implements. Section 613 produced 18 U.S.C. § 5043 (juvenile room confinement, with the 3-hour and 30-minute caps). The Act’s time-credit system did the rest of the work indirectly, by making it materially expensive to be in disciplinary segregation: credits do not accrue there, and 28 C.F.R. § 541.3 now includes a sanction — B.2 — allowing forfeiture of up to 41 days of earned FSA time credits for a single Greatest severity act. Our inmate discipline proceedings page covers that sanction schedule in full.

How to challenge a SHU placement

Both the placement and the conditions are challengeable. 28 C.F.R. § 541.26(d) provides that “you can submit a formal grievance challenging your placement in the SHU,” and 28 C.F.R. § 541.31(o) that “you can submit a formal grievance challenging any aspect of your confinement in the SHU” — both through the Administrative Remedy Program at 28 C.F.R. part 542, subpart B.

Step 1 — the informal route (BP-8) and the request to staff. Before a formal grievance, an attempt at informal resolution is ordinarily required. In the SHU the practical vehicle is a written request to staff — a “cop-out” — to the SRO, the Captain, or the unit team. Program staff “arrange to visit inmates in SHU within a reasonable time after receiving the inmate’s request” (PS 5270.12 at p. 18), so the written request is also how you get someone to the door. Keep a copy. Name the specific document you want: the ADO narrative, the BP-A0295, the multidisciplinary team’s identified factors.

Step 2 through 4 — the formal ladder.

Step	Form	Your deadline	Agency response time
Formal request to the Warden	BP-9	20 calendar days from the date the basis for the request occurred	20 calendar days
Appeal to the Regional Director	BP-10	20 calendar days from the date the Warden signed the response	30 calendar days
Appeal to the General Counsel — final administrative step	BP-11	30 calendar days from the date the Regional Director signed	40 calendar days

Deadlines from 28 C.F.R. §§ 542.14(a) and 542.15(a); response times from PS 1330.18 at p. 9.

Time limits “may be extended” when the inmate demonstrates a valid reason for delay, and the regulation names examples: an extended period in transit separated from the documents needed to prepare the filing, an extended period of physical incapacity, an unusually long period taken for informal resolution attempts (28 C.F.R. § 542.14(b)). Long SHU and holdover stays produce exactly those situations.

If a filing is rejected for a correctable defect — unsigned, missing copies, missing lower-level attachments — you get a written rejection notice explaining why and a reasonable time to fix it: ordinarily five calendar days at the institution, at least 10 calendar days at the CCM or regional offices, and 15 calendar days at the Central Office (PS 1330.18 at p. 8). Coordinators are instructed to be flexible about accepting somewhat untimely filings on sensitive or problematic issues such as medical treatment, sentence computation, or staff misconduct (PS 1330.18 at p. 9). Our full walkthrough is on the prison grievances page and in the Administrative Remedy Program explainer.

The constitutional backdrop — and why it is not the main event.

Four Supreme Court decisions frame what a federal court will do with a segregation claim. Read together, they explain why the administrative record matters more than the eventual lawsuit.

Sandin v. Conner, 515 U.S. 472 (1995), narrowed the question. State-created liberty interests “will be generally limited to freedom from restraint which … imposes atypical and significant hardship on the inmate in relation to the ordinary incidents of prison life.” Applying that, the Court held that 30 days of disciplinary segregation did not present “the type of atypical, significant deprivation in which a State might conceivably create a liberty interest,” in part because the segregation conditions “mirrored those conditions imposed upon inmates in administrative segregation and protective custody.” The Court also observed that “discipline by prison officials in response to a wide range of misconduct falls within the expected perimeters of the sentence imposed by a court of law.”

Wilkinson v. Austin, 545 U.S. 209 (2005), showed where the line can fall the other way. Conditions of extreme isolation, indefinite duration, and parole disqualification, “taken together … impose an atypical and significant hardship within the correctional context.” Wilkinson also confirmed that after Sandin, “the touchstone of the inquiry … is not the language of regulations regarding those conditions but the nature of those conditions themselves ‘in relation to the ordinary incidents of prison life.'” That is the analysis: conditions and duration, not the wording of the Program Statement.

Hewitt v. Helms, 459 U.S. 460 (1983), set the process floor for non-punitive segregation: “an informal, non-adversary review of the information supporting respondent’s administrative confinement, including whatever statement respondent wished to submit, within a reasonable time after confining him.” An inmate “must merely receive some notice of the charges against him and an opportunity to present his views.” Critically, Hewitt also held that “administrative segregation may not be used as a pretext for indefinite confinement of an inmate. Prison officials must engage in some sort of periodic review.” (Hewitt‘s separate methodology for finding liberty interests in mandatory regulatory language was superseded by Sandin and Wilkinson; its procedural holding is what remains useful.)

Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539 (1974), supplies the procedural rights that attach when discipline threatens good-time credits — advance written notice no less than 24 hours before the hearing, a written statement of the evidence relied on and the reasons, and a qualified right to call witnesses and present documentary evidence. And Superintendent, Massachusetts Correctional Institution at Walpole v. Hill, 472 U.S. 445 (1985), fixed the review standard at “some evidence,” which “does not require examination of the entire record, independent assessment of the credibility of witnesses, or weighing of the evidence.”

The practical upshot is straightforward. A federal judge is not going to reweigh whether your loved one should be in the SHU. What a judge can act on is a documented procedural failure or a set of conditions and a duration that, taken together, cross the Sandin line. Both of those are built — or lost — in the administrative record, which is why the first four steps above are the ones that matter most.

If good conduct time was taken and the administrative appeals are exhausted, the vehicle is a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 in the district of confinement. Property damaged or lost during a SHU move is a separate track — see inmate property claims and the Federal Tort Claims Act explainer. Allegations of staff misconduct have their own reporting route: see reporting staff misconduct.

What families can do from the outside

Someone in the SHU has one social phone call a month, no email, and limited mail. Almost everything useful in the first weeks has to be done by people on the outside. In rough order of value:

Find out where he actually is. SHU placement does not change the facility shown on the public locator, but a transfer does, and holdover status means a person can be in a facility for weeks that nobody told you about. Start with the federal inmate locator and the federal prison directory.

Write, immediately and often. Mail is allowed in the SHU, subject to the same correspondence rules as anywhere else, and the property list permits 10 pieces of mail and 25 photographs in the cell. Our page on how to write to someone in federal prison covers the addressing rules — get them right, because rejected mail is not forwarded.

Call the unit team, not the SHU. The unit manager, case manager and counselor are the staff with authority to move a case. Ask specifically: what is the status on the ADO, when was the last SRO review, and what has the weekly multidisciplinary team identified as the factors preventing return to general population.

If mental health is the issue, say so in writing, to Psychology Services and the unit team. Describe what you have observed and when. That written record is what triggers the evaluation obligations in the policy — and if the person is already Care3-MH, Care4-MH, on psychology alert, or on the Psychology Advisory List, the policy’s presumption against SHU placement is directly in play.

If the placement is protective, understand what you are asking for before you ask. Requesting protective custody has real costs, including the possibility of a transfer and a Central Inmate Monitoring separation assignment that follows a person for years. Read protective custody first.

Get counsel involved on legal calls, not social ones. The one-call-a-month rule in PS 5270.12 governs social calls; legal calls run under a different policy (PS 5270.12 at p. 17). An attorney’s office can request an unmonitored legal call. See attorney-client communications in the Bureau of Prisons.

Keep a dated log. Every call you make, who you spoke to, what they said. If a grievance or a lawsuit follows, that log becomes the timeline nobody else kept.

How our firm works SHU matters

Our federal prison consulting practice treats a SHU placement as a documents problem and a deadline problem before it is anything else. We identify which status the person is actually in and confirm it against the paperwork. We build the review timeline against the clocks in 28 C.F.R. § 541.26 and PS 5270.12 and identify what is missing. We push on the specific decision points that policy assigns to a named official — the Warden’s non-delegable approvals for single-celling, alternate clothing and exercise denial; the multidisciplinary team’s obligation to name the factors preventing return to general population; the 90-day post-disciplinary tripwire; the 180-day pre-release provision. And where a First Step Act time-credit ledger has stopped moving during an administrative-detention placement, we treat that as the discrete, correctable error that Bureau policy says it is.

Where a disciplinary finding drove the placement, that is worked in parallel — see inmate discipline proceedings. Where the placement is affecting a designation or a transfer, see designation and transfer problems and security designation and custody classification. Legal representation in any court proceeding is provided by Elizabeth Franklin-Best and the firm’s attorneys. You can contact the firm about a current placement.

Frequently Asked Questions About Solitary Confinement and the SHU

Reviewed for legal accuracy by Elizabeth Franklin-Best, Esq., Principal Attorney·September 2026