United States Supreme Court Places Limits on Federal Compassionate Release

Compassionate release is a last beacon of hope for many federal inmates. While an individual can still seek compassionate release based on “extraordinary and compelling” circumstances, the United States Supreme Court recently issued a pair of decisions that restricts what circumstances qualify for a reduction in sentence. Read more below about compassionate release for federal defendants, how the Court’s decisions in Rutherford v. United States and Fernandez v. United States impacts compassionate release eligibility, and how the team at Evergreen Attorneys can help in dire times.

Contact the compassionate release lawyers at Evergreen Attorneys today by calling (303) 948-1489, emailing us at [email protected], or submitting an online contact request form.

What Makes Evergreen Attorneys Different?

The compassionate release lawyers at Evergreen Attorneys know exactly what is at stake when seeking a compassionate release. Seeking compassionate release is not just rote motion practice for us. We believe that the key to a successful compassionate release is telling your story to the judge that is compelling and individualized. There is no “one-size-fits-all” when it comes to compassionate release. As the Supreme Court justices noted in their recent decisions, compassionate releases are personal to the individual. When you hire an attorney to tell your story, make sure it is one that fully understands what is at stake, the ever-developing law on compassionate release, and how to present your circumstances in the most effective manner to achieve the best results possible.

Here are some additional things that we think makes Evergreen Attorneys different from other compassionate release lawyers:

• We only focus on federal cases and high-stakes felonies. No family law, no medical malpractice, no transactional lawyers, and no traffic tickets.
• We only employ experienced partner-level attorneys. No fresh-faced associates right out of law school.
• We are a boutique federal defense law firm. We are selective with our cases and every decision we make is tailored to providing client-first exceptional criminal defense.
• Evergreen Attorneys handles criminal cases nationwide. We are not interested in being golfing buddies with the prosecutor.

What is a Compassionate Release?

We have written extensively on compassionate release in the past. Click here for an in-depth explainer on compassionate release.

In short, a compassionate release is a motion under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A) requesting a reduction in sentence based on “extraordinary and compelling” circumstances. A compassionate release can lead to a reduced sentence or even release from custody. Below are the steps for filing for compassionate release:

1. Initiating the Request: A request is sent to the warden of the BOP facility where the inmate is housed requesting the inmate be considered for compassionate release under BOP Program Statement 5050.50.
2. Administrative Remedy Exhaustion: After submitting the compassionate release request to the BOP, the inmate must “exhaust” his or her administrative remedies. For compassionate release purposes, this means either waiting for a denial from the warden or waiting at least 30 days after submitting the request, whichever is earlier. Nine times out of 10, you will have to wait the 30 days since the BOP often fails to respond earlier than that.
3. File the Motion: Once a request has been sent to the warden and the waiting period has passed, the inmate can file a motion for compassionate release with the court. These motions are filed in the same court that sentenced the inmate. The defendant bears the burden of showing that extraordinary and compelling circumstances warrant release, and that the sentencing factors under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) support a reduction in sentence.
4. Government Response: After the compassionate release is filed with the court, the government will be ordered to respond. The DOJ is going to oppose almost every single compassionate release request. Depending on the court, you may not get the opportunity to have the last word before the judge rules, so it is extremely important that the initial motion be a strong, compelling story.
5. The Judge will Grant or Deny the Motion: After the compassionate release motion is fully briefed (meaning the motion is filed, the government has responded, and a reply–if permitted–is filed), the court will issue a decision on the compassionate release motion. There is no time limit for the judge to rule; however, more time sensitive circumstances usually receive a ruling faster than other post-conviction motions.
6. Possibility of an Appeal: If the judge denied your compassionate release motion, you can appeal that decision to one of the United States Courts of Appeals. You only have 14 days after the order is entered to file a notice of appeal. While you can appeal the denial of a compassionate release, every circuit court has held that sentencing judges have wide discretion to decide a compassionate release. This means that most denials will be upheld on appeal unless you can show that the judge relied on clearly false or erroneous facts or law in its denial.

Just as you can appeal the denial of a compassionate release motion, the government can also appeal the grant of compassionate release. This does not always happen, but it is important to know that this is a possibility. This is exactly what happened in one of the Supreme Court cases discussed below.

You can click the links below for more resources on compassionate release:

• Compassionate Release: How to Leave Prison Early
• Sample Compassionate Release Letter
• Compassionate Release Date Report for FY 2025
• Compassionate Release Wins
• Compassionate Release Preview: Fernandez v. U.S.

Rutherford and Fernandez: The Supreme Court Restricts What Constitutes Extraordinary and Compelling Circumstances for Compassionate Release

The Supreme Court issued a pair of decisions on May 28, 2026, which significantly limits a federal defendant’s ability to seek compassionate release. Below is an in-depth analysis of each case and how they affect federal compassionate release. But before delving into these decisions, a little background on how compassionate release has developed over the past few years is helpful.

What are Extraordinary and Compelling Circumstances?

In order to be granted compassionate release, it is necessary to show that “extraordinary and compelling” circumstances warrant a reduction in sentence. When the First Step Act was first passed in 2018, the only definition of “extraordinary and compelling circumstances” was a very outdated policy statement from the U.S. Sentencing Commission. Because the policy statement had not been updated after the First Step Act, many courts decided that the sentencing judge was free to determine what conditions qualified as “”extraordinary and compelling.”

This policy statement was not updated until November 1, 2023, almost five years after the Act took effect. The new policy statement, found at U.S.S.G. § 1B1.13, provides six categories of circumstances that could qualify as “extraordinary and compelling”:

1. Medical Circumstances of the Defendant
2. Age of the Defendant
3. Family Circumstances of the Defendant
4. Victim of Abuse
5. Other Reasons (a catchall)
6. Unusually Long Sentences

After the amendment took effect, most courts relied on the Sentencing Commission’s policy statement to define what constitutes extraordinary and compelling circumstances. However, it did not take long for a circuit split to develop which ultimately led to the decisions in Rutherford and Fernandez.

Rutherford v. United States: Unusually Long Sentences

You can read the full opinion in Rutherford by clicking here.

What are the Facts?

Rutherford consolidated two similar compassionate release cases, Rutherford v. United States and Carter v. United States. In both cases, the defendants the defendants were subject to mandatory consecutive terms of imprisonment due to multiple 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) convictions. Rutherford received a sentence of 42 years imprisonment, and Carter was sentenced to 70 years.

Then, the First Step Act passed. Not only did the Act allow for defendant’s to file their own compassionate release motions, it also changed the penalty structure under § 924(c) significantly. If Rutherford and Carter were sentenced under today’s laws, they would have received sentences of 14 and 21 years, respectively. Both defendants filed motions for compassionate release based on the change in law and unusually long sentences.

Both defendants relied on the Sentencing Commission’s policy statement, U.S.S.G. § 1B1.13, to argue that the non-retroactive changes made by the FSA to 924(c) resulted in “unusually long sentences” that made up extraordinary and compelling circumstances warranting a reduction in sentence.

It is worth noting that many courts have granted compassionate release on the exact same grounds presented by Rutherford and Carter. Unfortunately, a circuit split developed where some courts held non-retroactive changes in law could not be considered for compassionate release purposes. Had Rutherford or Carter been in a different circuit, their compassionate releases may have very well been granted. However, binding circuit precedent resulted in the district courts denying each of their motions. They both appealed and took their cases to the Supreme Court.

What Did the Supreme Court Hold?

The United States Supreme Court sided with the circuit courts that have held that a non-retroactive change in law–such as the change to § 924(c)–cannot serve as “extraordinary and compelling” circumstances to warrant a compassionate release.

In addressing the Sentencing Commission’s policy allowing for an unusually long sentence to qualify for compassionate release, the Court wrote:

When Congress declines to make a sentencing amendment retroactive, the fact that a preamendment sentence is longer than it would have been postamendment is not an “extraordinary and compelling reaso[n]” that “warrant[s]” a sentence reduction. 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A). Insofar as the Commission’s amended policy statement maintains otherwise, it conflicts with the statute.”

The majority of the Court found that compassionate release should be based on circumstances that are “personal” to the defendant, such as health or family circumstances. It concluded that a nonretroactive amendment does not satisfy this requirement. Additionally, the majority wrote that, while extraordinary and compelling circumstances leave room for individual judgment, it does not encompass every consideration.

The Supreme Court concluded that the Sentencing Commission overstepped when it amended its policy statement on compassionate release because it conflicts with statute. While the Court did not go so far as to abrogate the policy statement, this decision severely limits the grounds on what federal inmates can seek compassionate release on moving forward.

Fernandez v. United States: Challenging a Conviction in Compassionate Release

You can read the full opinion in Fernandez by clicking here.

What are the Facts?

Fernandez was initially sentenced to two consecutive life sentences in federal district court. For almost a decade, he challenged his conviction in various motions that were all denied and affirmed on appeal (with the exception of one 2255 motion that resulted in vacatur of a § 924(c) conviction).

After the First Step Act, but prior to the Sentencing Commission’s amended policy statement, Fernandez filed a motion for compassionate release. His main argument is that his innocence qualified as an extraordinary and compelling reason to reduce his sentence–and the district court agreed. Almost a decade after trial and sentencing, the district judge has “a certain disquiet” regarding a codefendant’s testimony and “strong concerns” about the government’s charging decisions. In granting the compassionate release motion, the district judge wrote:

Fernandez has served 132 months, or 11 years. He is 46 years old. He has been in custody long enough. It is time for him to return to his family, and become a productive member of society.

United States v. Fernandez, 2022 WL 17039059 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 17, 2022).

However, the government appealed that decision to the Second Circuit Court of Appeals. On appeal, the Second Circuit reversed the grant of compassionate release, holding that “challenges to the validity of a conviction are not cognizable as ‘extraordinary and compelling reasons’ under section 3582(c)(1)(A).” 104 F.4th 420, 431 (2024). Fernandez appealed the Second Circuit’s reversal to the Supreme Court.

What Did the Supreme Court Hold?

Eight of the Nine justices agreed that the district court erred in granting compassionate release to Fernandez. The majority opinion held that a prisoner who collaterally attacks the validity of his conviction must do so through a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion, not compassionate release. According to the majority of the justices, permitting a defendant to seek compassionate release based on a challenge to the conviction would upend the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (AEDPA) and post-conviction motion practice as it has been since 1996.

Justices Sotomayor and Kagan concurred with the result, but not the methodology. The concurring justices proposed a much more limited holding: compassionate release cannot be based solely on facts a court already considered in imposing its initial sentence. Instead, a change in circumstances that has developed after sentencing is required.

Justice Jackson was the sole dissenter. Justice Jackson questioned the majority’s logic in reading in language that is nowhere in the text of § 3582(c)(1)(A) and the broad categorical rule imposed by the Court.

How Does Rutherford and Fernandez Affect Compassionate Release Motions?

These pair of decisions limit what grounds federal inmates can seek compassionate release on. However, other circumstances such as an inmate’s health or age, family circumstances, or being a victim of abuse are completely unaffected by the Court’s decisions. There is still even some room for argument under the “other reasons” and “unusually long sentences” categories of the Sentencing Commission’s policy statement, although the twin decisions will make those arguments tougher in the future.

The key takeaways from Rutherford and Fernandez are that compassionate release cannot be used for a motion based on (1) a challenge to your conviction, or (2) a non-retroactive change in law. Unfortunately, this will make it more difficult for many people currently in federal prison to seek compassionate release relief.

Contact Evergreen Attorneys Today to Discuss Compassionate Release

A compassionate release is often an incarcerated person’s last hope at relief. If you or someone you know need assistance with compassionate release, do not hesitate to contact the compassionate release lawyers at Evergreen Attorneys today. You can call us at (303) 948-1489, or e-mail us directly at [email protected].