Rico v. United States

The Supreme Court decided that the Sentencing Reform Act does not allow a supervised-release term to be automatically extended when a defendant absconds. It reversed the Ninth Circuit and sent the case back for further proceedings.

Justice Gorsuch wrote the 8–1 opinion, joined by Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Thomas, Sotomayor, Kagan, Barrett, Kavanaugh, and Jackson; Justice Alito dissented.

The Court ruled 8-1. Justice Neil Gorsuch wrote the majority opinion, joined by Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr., and Justices Clarence Thomas, Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, Amy Coney Barrett, Brett M. Kavanaugh, and Ketanji Brown Jackson. Justice Samuel A. Alito, Jr., wrote a dissent.

““The Sentencing Reform Act does not authorize a rule automatically extending a defendant’s term of supervised release when the defendant absconds.””

People on supervised release who abscond cannot have their terms automatically extended under the fugitive-tolling doctrine. Federal courts must apply the limits the Court identified when calculating those terms.

The Ninth Circuit must reconsider Rico's case under the Supreme Court's decision. Lower courts and agencies must not automatically extend supervised-release terms on this basis.

The Court said the Sentencing Reform Act does not permit automatic extension of supervised release when a defendant absconds. It reversed the Ninth Circuit.

People on federal supervised release who abscond may be affected. Courts cannot automatically add time to their supervised-release terms under this doctrine.

The case returns to the Ninth Circuit for further proceedings. That court must apply the Supreme Court's rule against automatic extension.