Rutherford v. United States
The Court holds that when Congress declines to make a sentencing amendment retroactive — as it did with the First Step Act's change to the "stacked" mandatory minimums of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) — the resulting disparity between a prisoner's existing sentence and the shorter one he would receive today cannot be an "extraordinary and compelling" reason warranting a sentence reduction under the compassionate-release statute, § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i). To the extent the Sentencing Commission's 2023 policy statement counsels otherwise, it is invalid.
Opinion: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/25pdf/24-820_97be.pdf
Case background
Petitioner Daniel Rutherford was convicted of two counts of using and carrying a firearm during a crime of violence, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c), and petitioner Johnnie Carter was convicted of three § 924(c) violations. At the time each was sentenced, a defendant convicted of two § 924(c) counts faced a mandatory 25-year sentence for the second offense that was “stacked” upon — run consecutively to — the penalty for the first. That scheme produced a 32-year minimum sentence for Rutherford and a 57-year minimum for Carter. Years later, Congress passed the First Step Act of 2018, which eliminated the 25-year stacking requirement for first-time offenders. But that amendment does not apply to defendants sentenced before the Act, so neither Rutherford nor Carter qualifies for the reduced penalties. Each instead invoked the nonretroactive change as a basis for a sentence reduction under § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i), the “compassionate release” provision, which allows a court to reduce a term of imprisonment if it finds, after considering the § 3553(a) factors, that “extraordinary and compelling reasons warrant such a reduction” and that the reduction is consistent with applicable policy statements issued by the Sentencing Commission. The courts below held that the nonretroactive change to § 924(c) cannot be an “extraordinary and compelling” reason; the Third Circuit added that the Commission’s 2023 policy statement — which lists an “unusually long sentence” among such reasons — conflicts with the will of Congress. The Court granted certiorari in these consolidated cases to resolve a split among the Circuits.
Questions Presented
- Whether the Sentencing Commission acted within its expressly delegated authority by permitting district courts to consider, in narrowly cabined circumstances, a nonretroactive change in law in determining whether “extraordinary and compelling reasons” warrant a sentence reduction.
Holding
When Congress declines to make a sentencing amendment retroactive — as with the change to § 924(c) — the resulting sentencing disparity cannot serve as an “extraordinary and compelling” reason that warrants a sentence reduction under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i). Under the ordinary meaning of the words, “extraordinary and compelling” reasons are those that are especially unusual and convincing. A disparity created by Congress’s deliberate choice to extend reduced penalties to some offenders but not others is neither: nonretroactive amendments to criminal penalties are the norm, so the disparity is an unexceptional feature of a system in which nonretroactivity is the default, and treating it as a compelling reason for release would undermine Congress’s choice to leave the existing sentence intact. Eligibility for compassionate release is a distinct gatekeeping step that turns on whether a prisoner can offer “extraordinary and compelling” reasons, not on the § 3553(a) sentencing factors. Because the statutory text and structure foreclose treating the § 924(c) change — considered by itself or in combination with other factors — as a basis for eligibility, the Sentencing Commission’s contrary 2023 policy statement is invalid to that extent. 120 F. 4th 360, affirmed.
The Court
Justice Barrett delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch, and Kavanaugh joined. Justice Sotomayor filed a dissenting opinion, in which Justices Kagan and Jackson joined.
What this episode contains
This episode is an AI-narrated reading of the majority opinion in Rutherford v. United States, written by Justice Barrett.
AI disclosure: The voice in this episode is AI-generated, using a machine learning model styled to loosely resemble the authoring justice. Tone, inflection, pacing, and emphasis are artifacts of the model and should not be attributed to Justice Barrett. The text being read is the Court’s published majority opinion, lightly adapted to improve readability for the spoken format.