Americans for Prosperity recently published a report explaining why each summer Congress should legislatively respond to Supreme Court decisions interpreting federal statutes.
The report makes a simple point: when the Supreme Court interprets a statute, its job is to say what the law is—not what it should be. If Congress disagrees with the result and wants the statute to mean something else, the Constitution provides it with the tool to do so: amend the statute. Yet this legislative response remains chronically underused.
Congress should amend 18 U.S.C. § 3582 to clarify that sentencing disparities created by the First Step Act may be considered by judges when assessing requests for compassionate release.
Background
As a general rule, federal district courts may not modify or reduce sentences once they are imposed. But 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1) authorizes a district court to grant compassionate release and reduce a sentence if it finds “extraordinary and compelling reasons warrant such a reduction . . . and that such a reduction is consistent with applicable policy statements issued by the Sentencing Commission.”
The First Step Act (“FSA”) is a sentencing law that reduced or limited mandatory minimum penalties for certain crimes. Many of those reforms are non-retroactive. It also expanded the availability of compassionate release by authorizing prisoners to file motions requesting sentence reductions. Under the 2023 Sentencing Guidelines, courts could consider those changes in some cases. The question in Rutherford v. U.S. was whether “disparities created by the [FSA]’s prospective changes in sentencing law” may be considered when making that decision.
Supreme Court Ruling
The Court ruled the FSA’s non-retroactive changes to certain federal mandatory minimum sentences do not qualify as an “extraordinary and compelling reason” justifying a reduced sentence under the compassionate release exception. Thus, when Congress declines to make a sentencing amendment retroactive, the resulting sentencing disparity cannot be an “extraordinary and compelling” reason that warrants a sentence reduction. The Court made clear the Sentencing Commission cannot change this by a policy statement because the statute required this result.
AFP-Supported Congressional Response
Congress should amend 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1) to clarify that the FSA’s changes that create sentencing disparities may be considered when assessing compassionate release. Principles of proportionate sentencing and fairness support allowing but not requiring courts to consider the FSA’s changes on a case-by-case basis.
