Rutherford v. United States, Docket No. 24-820

Listen to the episode On Spotify on Apple Podcasts or on YouTube

Thousands of federal prisoners serving sentences that would be dramatically shorter under today's laws have just lost their best chance at freedom. In a 6-3 decision, the Supreme Court ruled that judges cannot consider sentencing gaps when deciding whether to grant early release, even when Congress itself changed the law but refused to apply it to people already locked up. For men like Daniel Rutherford and Johnnie Carter, who are serving decades in prison under rules that no longer exist, the ruling means they're stuck serving sentences that could be cut in half if they were sentenced today.

What Happened and Why It Matters

Rutherford and Carter were sentenced under an old rule that forced judges to stack mandatory minimum sentences on top of each other for certain gun crimes. In 2018, Congress passed the First Step Act and eliminated that stacking rule, but only for people sentenced after the law took effect. The two men asked courts to reduce their sentences under a process called compassionate release, arguing that the gap between their sentences and what someone would get today was extraordinary enough to justify early release. A federal sentencing agency agreed and said judges could consider these gaps. The Supreme Court disagreed and struck down that policy.

The case reveals a fundamental disagreement about fairness. Rutherford and Carter argued that judges should have flexibility to look at the full picture of each person's situation. They pointed out that compassionate release is already extremely rare, with only 56 approvals nationwide in all of 2025. The government countered that Congress deliberately chose not to apply the new rule retroactively, and allowing judges to grant relief case by case would quietly undo that choice.

The Court's Decision

Justice Barrett, writing for the majority, said the words "extraordinary and compelling" in the compassionate release law simply cannot cover sentencing gaps created by laws Congress chose not to apply retroactively. Since new sentencing laws routinely apply only going forward, she reasoned, the resulting gap is neither extraordinary nor compelling. The majority also rejected the argument that Congress's silence on sentencing gaps means judges can consider them. Just because Congress only explicitly banned one thing, using rehabilitation alone as a reason, does not mean everything else is automatically allowed.

The Dissent's Counterargument

Justice Sotomayor, joined by two other justices, argued the majority gave Congress's silence too much weight. Congress chose not to make the change automatic, she wrote, but that does not mean sentencing gaps can never be one factor in an individual case. She pointed out that other common experiences like aging and illness can support compassionate release, yet no one argues those are "extraordinary." The dissent also noted that the sentencing agency's rule was strict and produced only 98 grants nationwide in 2024 out of more than 130,000 federal prisoners, so there was no real danger of opening floodgates.

Early Release for Thousands Serving Outdated Sentences

The decision creates a hard line. Judges cannot even consider whether someone is serving a sentence far longer than current law would impose. This closes off one of the only remaining options for thousands of people sentenced under the old gun stacking rules. Congress could step in and fix this, but there is no guarantee it will. For now, these prisoners have no clear path to individual review, even in cases where the gap between their sentence and what they would receive today is dramatic.

The case highlights a real tension in how courts balance broad legislative choices against individual fairness. When Congress changes sentencing rules but refuses to apply them retroactively, should judges have any ability to consider that gap in individual cases? The majority said no. The dissent said judges should at least have the chance to look at the full picture. That disagreement will shape compassionate release cases for years to come.