In a contentious ruling, a federal appeals court has blocked the U.S. Sentencing Commission’s attempt to expand compassionate release, declaring the commission overstepped its authority. This decision slams the door on potential relief for numerous inmates, despite recent reforms meant to alleviate harsh sentencing practices.
The case centered around Daniel Rutherford, who has been serving a nearly 42-and-a-half-year sentence for two armed robberies committed in 2003. Rutherford argued that under today’s sentencing guidelines—amended by the 2018 First Step Act—his prison term would have been significantly reduced. However, the Philadelphia-based 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals denied his bid for a sentence reduction, citing the non-retroactive nature of the law.
The debate has stirred emotions on Capitol Hill. Senator Dick Durbin, a vocal advocate for the First Step Act, criticized the ruling, arguing it robs judges of the discretion to reconsider sentences based on evolving laws. Joined by Senator Cory Booker, Durbin had previously submitted a brief defending the Sentencing Commission’s policy as a necessary check against outdated and overly punitive sentencing norms.
The crux of the court’s rejection, authored by Judge Kent Jordan, lies in congressional intent. Jordan asserted that while the Sentencing Commission’s aims may be noble, Congress deliberately chose not to apply certain sentencing reforms retroactively. Highlighting a recent Supreme Court precedent, Jordan emphasized that policy interpretations, no matter how well-meaning, cannot override explicit legislative boundaries.
The ruling sheds light on the ongoing struggle over criminal justice reform and the scope of judicial discretion. Without consensus, the landscape remains fractured: several appeals courts have supported the notion of using new laws as justification for early release, while others, like the 3rd Circuit, firmly disagree.
The Sentencing Commission, which had only recently resumed full functionality after years of stagnation, now faces an uphill battle as the case’s implications ripple through the justice system. Meanwhile, the next chapter in this legal saga may head to the Supreme Court, where broader questions of agency power and congressional authority await deeper scrutiny.
