SCOTUS Was Wrong about First Step Act Compassionate Relief

By Josh Hoe, Senior Policy Manager 

If you were incarcerated for a crime that was no longer considered a crime, would you think you had an “extraordinary and compelling” reason to obtain relief from your sentence? 

On December 21, 2018, President Trump signed the First Step Act into law. Since that day, over 40,000 people have come home as a result of its implementation.

A number of significant reforms were included in The First Step Act, including making reduced penalties for crack cocaine offenses retroactive and creating Earned Credits to help currently incarcerated people obtain earlier release. Amongst those reforms was the “compassionate relief” provision, a new avenue to extend compassionate relief for those who were incarcerated but had an “extraordinary and compelling” reason for release. Several attorneys, and later the US Sentencing Commission, endorsed the idea that non-retroactivity could constitute an “extraordinary and compelling” reason for allowing people to petition for compassionate relief. This would allow individuals who remained incarcerated for a crime that was no longer illegal or for which the sentencing calculus had changed, a legitimate basis for a compassionate relief petition.

I personally spent two years of my life working to help pass the First Step Act because I believe in the power of second chances. The people most impacted by bad law are exactly those who were helped by this application of the First Step Act and once we decide something is no longer a crime, or should be considered a lesser crime, they should not be forced to serve more time than necessary.

Unfortunately, last week, in two decisions, Rutherford v. US and Fernandez v. US, the Supreme Court held, first, that non-retroactivity is not an "extraordinary and compelling” justification for compassionate relief and, second, that compassionate relief cannot be granted to attack the validity of a conviction. These decisions threaten to leave many people without a meaningful way to seek relief. 

Dream.Org was the lead organization fighting for the passage of the First Step Act in 2018 and we, as an organization, are devastated by the evisceration of this fruitful mechanism for meaningful release. 

The Supreme Court has traditionally suggested they would remove themselves from “political questions” and allow the legislature to decide such questions. In the Rutherford case, Justice Sotomayor spoke to this in her dissenting opinion:

“Congress directed the United States Sentencing Commission, not this Court, to define what constitutes “extraordinary and compelling reasons” for incarcerated individuals to receive a sentence reduction under the compassionate release statute. In 2023, the Commission exercised its statutory authority and issued a policy statement that permitted district courts to consider sentencing disparities created by changes in law. Such disparities, the Commission specified, should be considered rarely and only as part of an inquiry into whether the totality of the circumstances warrant a reduction in a person’s sentence.”

In this instance, Congress had the opportunity to overrule the Sentencing Commission's amendment and chose not to. This overruling of the political branches is sad and will have real consequences for currently incarcerated people in our overcrowded and understaffed federal prisons going forward. Some will claim that if the legislature intended that provisions be retroactive, they would have made them retroactive, but, that is why they included a safety-valve in the first place.

As an organization, Dream.Org  believes, and will continue to fight for, the ability for incarcerated people to seek relief when sentencing laws change. It should be considered “extraordinary and compelling” when human beings are required to continue serving time for offenses that are no longer crimes or have been reclassified as lesser crimes.