US Supreme Court Blocks Prisoners From Using 2018 Reform Law to Reduce Older Sentences

The United States Supreme Court has held that federal prisoners cannot obtain sentence reductions through compassionate release solely because they would receive shorter sentences under current law following the enactment of the First Step Act of 2018. In a 6–3 decision delivered by Justice Amy Coney Barrett, the Court upheld rulings denying relief to two Pennsylvania inmates, Daniel Rutherford and Johnnie Carter, who argued that changes introduced by the First Step Act created significant disparities between their original sentences and those that would be imposed today.

The dispute centered on the compassionate release provisions under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A), which permit sentence reductions where “extraordinary and compelling reasons” exist. Rutherford and Carter relied on a 2023 policy statement issued by the United States Sentencing Commission, which allowed courts to consider unusually long sentences and subsequent legal changes as extraordinary and compelling circumstances. The Supreme Court rejected that interpretation, holding that Congress deliberately chose not to make certain sentencing reforms retroactive. Consequently, sentence disparities resulting from legislative decisions cannot themselves constitute extraordinary and compelling reasons for compassionate release.

The Court further invalidated the relevant portion of the Sentencing Commission’s 2023 policy statement, finding that it exceeded the authority granted by Congress. Justice Barrett observed that compassionate release cannot be used to circumvent Congress’s decision regarding retroactivity. In dissent, Justice Sonia Sotomayor, joined by Justices Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson, argued that the Commission reasonably exercised its delegated authority and that sentencing disparities may legitimately be considered in compassionate-release determinations.

The ruling significantly narrows the scope of compassionate release under the First Step Act and limits judicial discretion to reduce lengthy pre-2018 sentences. Critics, including Senate Judiciary Committee Ranking Member Dick Durbin, contended that the decision undermines the reform objectives of the bipartisan legislation. The judgment is expected to affect numerous federal inmates seeking sentence reductions based on sentencing reforms enacted after their convictions.

Case: Rutherford v. United States, No. 24-820 (U.S. Supreme Court, decided May 28, 2026).