The Supreme Court ruled 6-3 that First Step Act sentencing disparities don't qualify as grounds for compassionate release, overriding a 2023 Sentencing Commission policy.
The Supreme Court ruled 6 to 3 on May 28, 2026, that sentencing disparities created by Congress's nonretroactive amendment to the stacked-gun-charge mandatory minimums under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) do not constitute "extraordinary and compelling reasons" for compassionate release under 18 U.S.C. § 3582 [1]. The majority held that the U.S. Sentencing Commission exceeded its statutory authority when it adopted a 2023 policy permitting federal courts to weigh such disparities as grounds for sentence reduction [2]. The decision closes a release pathway that thousands of incarcerated people had used, or sought to use, following Congress's partial reform of those mandatory minimums through the First Step Act of 2018 [1].
The case, *Rutherford v. United States*, No. 24-820, was decided as a companion to *Fernandez v. United States* and arose from a federal prisoner's petition arguing that his sentence, imposed under the pre-reform § 924(c) regime, was disproportionate to what a defendant convicted of the same conduct today would receive [2]. Justice Amy Coney Barrett authored the majority opinion, joined by the Court's five other conservative justices [1]. Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, and Ketanji Brown Jackson dissented, contending that Congress had expressly delegated to the Sentencing Commission the authority to define what qualifies as extraordinary and compelling, and that the Commission's 2023 amendment was a lawful exercise of that power [3].
The ruling carries immediate practical weight. The Sentencing Commission's 2023 policy, codified at U.S.S.G. § 1B1.13(b)(6), had given district courts an explicit textual hook to reduce sentences for defendants whose crimes now carry substantially lower penalties [2]. Barrett's majority opinion rejects that hook entirely, holding that nonretroactive statutory changes cannot, by judicial or Commission fiat, become the functional equivalent of retroactive relief [1]. The decision also signals the Court's broader intent to read § 3582's compassionate release provision narrowly, constraining both district court discretion and the Commission's rulemaking latitude [1].
Advocacy organizations are expected to urge Congress to amend § 3582 directly, while defense counsel in pending compassionate release cases will need to identify grounds untouched by the ruling, including medical conditions and other Commission-recognized categories [3]. The Department of Justice will likely file supplemental briefs in circuit courts where the Sentencing Commission's 2023 guideline has already generated favorable rulings for defendants, seeking reversal in light of *Rutherford* [1].