Daniel Rutherford, Petitioner v. United States

The Supreme Court said district courts may treat a large sentencing gap created by the First Step Act's later changes to mandatory minimum penalties as an "extraordinary and compelling reason" for compassionate release. The case asked whether judges could consider that kind of decades-long gap when deciding whether to reduce a federal prison sentence.

The Court decided that district courts may consider sentencing disparities created by the First Step Act, but the vote count and opinion lineup are not provided here.

Majority

Barrett

Roberts

Thomas

Alito

Gorsuch

Kavanaugh

Dissent

Sotomayor

Kagan

Jackson

This gives federal judges more room to revisit very long sentences that would likely be shorter if imposed today. For example, a person serving decades more because of older mandatory minimum rules can now point to that gap when seeking compassionate release.

Lower courts must apply that rule in compassionate-release cases, including Rutherford's, while still deciding whether relief is justified under the full statute. Federal prisoners, prosecutors, and probation offices will likely file and respond to more motions raising First Step Act sentencing gaps.

The case asked whether judges can treat a huge sentencing gap caused by later First Step Act changes as a reason for compassionate release. The Supreme Court said they can consider that gap.

Federal prisoners serving much longer sentences than they would likely receive today are most affected. Judges may now weigh that difference when deciding whether to shorten a sentence.

Lower courts will use this rule in pending and future compassionate-release motions. Each judge must still decide whether relief is warranted in the individual case.