Which president established the Bureau of Prisons?

This report led to Congress passing the Act of May 14, 1930, signed into law by President Herbert Hoover, creating the Federal Bureau of Prisons. The new agency assumed the responsibilities of oversight, management, and administration of the 11 Federal prisons in operation at the time.

How many inmates does the Federal Bureau of Prisons have?

153,792 Total Federal Inmates Last Updated June 25, 2026.

Ali v. Federal Bureau of Prisons

Ali v. Federal Bureau of Prisons, 552 U.S. 214 (2008), was a United States Supreme Court case, upholding the United States's sovereign immunity against tort claims brought when "any law enforcement officer " loses a person's property . It was argued on October 29, 2007, and decided on January 22, 2008, by the Roberts Court .

This article **relies largely or entirely on a single source **. Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources . Unsourced material may be challenged and removed .
Find sources: "Ali v. Federal Bureau of Prisons" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR (October 2024) (Learn how and when to remove this message )

Background

(https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ali_v._Federal_Bureau_of_Prisons&action=edit&section=1 "Edit section: Background")

Abdus-Shahid M. S. Ali, a federal prisoner in Atlanta, Georgia , was transferred to a prison in Inez, Kentucky . His personal property, packed into two duffel bags , was shipped separately. Upon inspecting his property after arrival at the new prison, he said that $177 worth of property was missing from the bags. Ali filed an administrative claim; relief was denied because Ali had signed a receipt form. Ali filed a lawsuit against the Federal Bureau of Prisons .

The case turned on the grammar of part of the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA), a 1946 law that waives sovereign immunity in some cases so that the federal government may be sued for certain torts. The FTCA states that the waiver of immunity does not apply to claims arising from the detention of property by "any officer of customs or excise or any other law enforcement officer." Ali argued that this text had been intended to encompass only law enforcement officers concerned with customs or excise laws. The Bureau of Prisons argued that the word "any" should be interpreted broadly.

Opinion of the Court

(https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ali_v._Federal_Bureau_of_Prisons&action=edit&section=2 "Edit section: Opinion of the Court")

The Supreme Court ruled against Ali in a 5–4 decision. Justice Clarence Thomas wrote, "The phrase 'any other law enforcement officer' suggests a broad meaning," and compared the phrasing to the phrasing of other laws, with and without the word "any."

In his dissent, Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote that the majority was using "wooden reliance" on the single word any without considering the rest of the paragraph of the FTCA, and added, "If Congress had intended to give sweeping immunity to all federal law enforcement officials from liability for the detention of property, it would not have dropped this phrase onto the end of the statutory clause so as to appear there as something of an afterthought."