WASHINGTON, D.C. — In decisions that critics say undermine bipartisan federal sentencing reforms, a majority of U.S. Supreme Court justices pushed back against efforts to expand early prison release, ruling against broader applications of compassionate release in Rutherford v. United States and Fernandez v. United States.
Jamiles Lartey of The Marshall Project reports that federal courts are now refusing to use compassionate release in cases where “a sentence [is now deemed too harsh by Congress], or if a judge later doubts whether a person was rightly convicted in the first place.”
He states that justices in both cases decided that early release cannot be used to revisit cases, regardless of the circumstances, when there is uncertainty about a past conviction or an excessive penalty.
Compassionate release dates back to 1984, when it was enacted by Congress and incorporated into federal law, allowing courts to reduce sentences for “extraordinary and compelling reasons.” Requests can be brought directly before a judge, according to Lartey. “This [led] to a roughly 20-fold increase in successful release motions, up to 481 out of just over 2,500 applications in fiscal year 2024,” according to the U.S. Sentencing Commission.
The law originally aimed to ensure fairer punishments for similar crimes by allowing reduced sentences in certain cases without specifically defining what would qualify as a legitimate motion for release. Lartey adds that this lack of definition remains a source of conflict today within the commission.
He writes that the court’s ruling in Rutherford v. United States creates limitations on how early prison release will be handled in future court proceedings, including Fernandez v. United States and Maxwell v. Thomas.
According to Lartey, Rutherford v. United States involved a case of excessive penalties in which a jury sentenced a man in 2003 on multiple counts related to the use of a firearm during a violent crime. Lartey explains that the law, as applied at the time, required the sentences to run consecutively, resulting in a “42 ½ year sentence, largely driven by a mandatory 32-year penalty for the gun charges.”
Lartey states that Congress passed the bipartisan First Step Act in 2018 to create a more rehabilitative legal system by allowing eligible incarcerated people to benefit from sentencing reforms and by eliminating sentence stacking through the use of compassionate release.
Resistance from the majority is reflected in the words of Justice Sonia Sotomayor, who wrote that, “The policy didn’t automatically free anyone … [stating] 80% of compassionate release applications are still denied.”
Justice Amy Coney Barrett expressed a different view, writing that, “Congress’ decision to not make new sentencing laws apply to old cases was a common one, and therefore nothing ‘extraordinary.’ Thus, it doesn’t fit within the boundaries of compassionate release.”
According to Lartey, Fernandez v. United States centered on a man who maintained his innocence and who, in 2014, was sentenced to two life terms in a murder-for-hire case. He served a longer sentence than “co-conspirators who took plea agreements,” and a judge granted him compassionate release in 2022 based on witness testimony.
Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson responded to opposition to his early release by writing, “An innocent man stuck in prison for life: Can there be a more ‘extraordinary and compelling’ reason to shorten a prison sentence than that?”
Data from a 2013 Department of Justice report cited by Lartey shows there were only “an average of just 24 releases a year under this system, or roughly 0.01% of federal prisoners.” He argues that this reflects a long history of resistance to broader implementation of the bipartisan law and the use of early release mechanisms.
In Fernandez v. United States, the court ruled, according to Lartey, that “the validity of a conviction [was] not a valid basis for compassionate release … [and instead was] evidence of the law’s focus on granting mercy rather than righting legal wrongs.” He writes that the court reasoned individuals claiming innocence should pursue relief through habeas corpus petitions rather than compassionate release.
Lartey reports that Maxwell v. Thomas, scheduled for consideration Monday, will focus on habeas corpus as a legal mechanism to challenge the legality of confinement involving the “Bureau of Prisons’ handling of good time credits expanded under the First Step Act,” which could allow a person in custody to be released sooner to home confinement.
Follow the Vanguard on Social Media – X, Instagram and Facebook. Subscribe the Vanguard News letters. To make a tax-deductible donation, please visit davisvanguard.org/donate or give directly through ActBlue. Your support will ensure that the vital work of the Vanguard continues.
