The Supreme Court on Thursday, May 28, 2026, pulled back hard on when federal judges can cut long prison terms under the First Step Act’s compassionate release rule. In a trio of decisions involving Daniel Rutherford, Johnnie Carter and Joe Fernandez, the justices shut down a popular strategy that let inmates ask trial judges to revisit what they call outdated sentences left behind by older federal laws.
What the Court Held
The majority held that when Congress chooses not to make a sentencing change retroactive, the gap between old and new penalties cannot count as an “extraordinary and compelling” reason to shorten a sentence. In other words, if lawmakers do not go back and fix past terms, judges generally cannot do it through compassionate release. The court also concluded that the Sentencing Commission’s 2023 policy that let judges give limited weight to such disparities is invalid whenever it conflicts with the statute, according to the opinion posted by LII / Cornell Law School.
The Cases And Their Sentences
Rutherford was convicted of multiple counts of carrying a firearm during crimes of violence and received a sentence a bit over 42 years. Carter drew roughly 70 years, most of it from stacked §924(c) firearm counts. Both men argued that the First Step Act’s 2018 reforms, which stopped that kind of stacking for many defendants, left them serving unusually long terms that should qualify for compassionate release. The Supreme Court’s decision rejects that theory, as summarized by Justia.
Fernandez And The Habeas Line
In a related ruling involving Joe Fernandez, the court voted 8-1 that claiming one’s conviction is invalid is not the kind of “extraordinary and compelling” reason that 18 U.S.C. §3582 covers. The majority said those attacks belong in habeas filings under 28 U.S.C. §2255, not in a compassionate release motion. Justice Barrett wrote the opinion. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson dissented, warning that the decision imports habeas-style limits into a statute Congress designed as a narrow vehicle for mercy, according to the court’s text at LII / Cornell Law School.
Sentencing Commission Policy And Numbers
The decisions blunt the impact of the Sentencing Commission’s November 2023 amendment, USSG §1B1.13(b)(6), which created an “Unusually Long Sentence” category and let courts, in limited situations, consider legal changes that Congress did not make retroactive. Even before the Supreme Court weighed in, the numbers were modest. The Commission’s data show that in fiscal year 2024, judges granted compassionate release only a few hundred times and used the change-in-law ground even less frequently, according to USSC.
Why It Matters
Defense lawyers say the new limits will close off one of the more flexible routes for people with long sentences to seek a second look, and will push more challenges back into the slower and more technical habeas process. Legal analysts note that Congress or the Sentencing Commission could still change the ground rules if they choose, but for now lower courts have been told to treat retroactivity and the statute’s text as the core of any compassionate release analysis, as argued by commentators at Sentencing Law and Policy.
Legal Implications
Taken together, the rulings underscore that the Sentencing Commission defines what counts as “extraordinary and compelling” but must operate within the boundaries Congress set. The court stressed that compassionate release is a narrow, mercy-focused remedy, not a workaround for full resentencing or a substitute for habeas. More appeals and fresh circuit-level fights are likely, and lawmakers still have the option to revise retroactivity rules or the guidelines. The opinions also leave several procedural and doctrinal questions for lower courts to iron out, see Justia.
