Daniel Rutherford, Petitioner v. United States

The Supreme Court said federal judges may consider a large gap between an older sentence and the shorter sentence a person would likely receive today when deciding compassionate release (early sentence reduction) requests. In Daniel Rutherford's case, that meant judges are not barred from treating the First Step Act's non-retroactive penalty changes as part of an "extraordinary and compelling reason" for relief.

This gives people serving much longer federal sentences under older mandatory minimum rules another path to ask for a shorter sentence. For example, someone serving decades more because of pre-First Step Act gun penalties can now ask a judge to weigh that disparity, though release is not automatic.

Lower courts must apply this rule in Rutherford's case if more proceedings are needed and in similar compassionate release motions nationwide. Prisoners, prosecutors, and judges will now argue and assess whether a sentencing gap, along with other facts, justifies reducing a sentence.

The case asked whether judges may treat a huge gap between an old sentence and today's shorter sentence as an extraordinary and compelling reason. That question arose in compassionate release motions under federal law.

Federal prisoners serving much longer sentences under older mandatory minimum rules are the clearest group affected. Judges can now consider that disparity, but they do not have to grant release.

Lower courts will use this rule when deciding new and pending compassionate release motions. In Rutherford's own case, any further proceedings must follow the Supreme Court's reading of the statute.