Supreme Court Addresses Controversy Surrounding Supervised Release Revocations
An inmate contended that courts should refrain from considering specific factors when making their decisions.
On February 25, the Supreme Court deliberated the factors that federal judges may consider when revoking a person’s supervised release and imposing a sentence for breaching release conditions.
Supervised release operates as a system of post-incarceration supervision akin to parole. When a prisoner is released, they still endure restrictions on their freedom for a designated period. Throughout this duration, individuals are mandated to adhere to specific conditions and are overseen by a probation officer. Should they breach these conditions, they risk being returned to prison.
In the case of Esteras v. United States, the justices explored a conflict among various federal appeals courts regarding the factors judges are permitted to assess when sentencing a person for violating the terms of supervised release.
They also examined if judges are allowed to consider factors not outlined in the supervised release statute, particularly Section 3583(e) of Title 18 of the U.S. Code.
Five courts of appeals have concluded that federal district courts can consider the so-called retribution factors identified in Section 3553(a)(2)(A) of Title 18, while four courts have ruled they cannot, as noted in the petition.
Related Stories
The factors outlined in that section include the necessity for a sentence to reflect the seriousness of the offense, foster respect for the law, and provide just punishment for the crime.
The case traces back to 2018 when Esteras pleaded guilty to conspiracy to distribute heroin.
Sentencing guidelines recommended a term of 15 to 21 months; however, the federal district court sentenced him to 12 months in prison, to be served concurrently with a 15-month sentence for violating probation linked to a prior federal drug trafficking conviction. This was to be followed by six years of supervised release.
The Sixth Circuit noted that the six-year supervised release term commenced in January 2020. By January 2023, probation officials informed the district court that Esteras had violated the conditions of his supervised release through incidents of domestic violence and firearm possession. The officials later reported to the court that these new criminal charges were dismissed at the victim’s request.
Upon reviewing the government’s assertion that Esteras breached his supervised release terms, the district court declined to find he had committed a new legal violation but confirmed he had possessed a firearm. Consequently, the court revoked his supervised release and imposed a 24-month prison sentence, followed by three years of supervised release, according to the circuit court.
Esteras contested the district court’s consideration of the retribution factors.
The circuit court upheld the district court’s decision.
According to Grostic, supervised release differs from the prison term itself in that it focuses on rehabilitation, safeguarding society, and facilitating a prisoner’s reintegration into the community.
Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson remarked to the attorney, “[T]he purposes there relate to other things. You’re not imposing supervised release to punish the person for the crime that they committed. That’s the incarcerative term that you’ve already imposed.”
Grostic explained that the Sixth Circuit’s stance allows district courts to “treat a supervised release revocation similarly to an initial sentencing, permitting them to penalize the offender for past actions, irrespective of any changes that may have occurred since.”
Justice Neil Gorsuch commented that district courts “can’t go beyond … the factual findings of the jury to impose a new sentence. That’s not allowed.”
Gorsuch questioned how judges could exclude retribution factors from a supervised release hearing when Congress incorporated them into the statute. He also inquired how a prison term could not be viewed as retributive.
“In the real world, an individual appears before a judge after violating a term of supervised release and is sent back to prison. In what world does he believe he is not being punished?” Gorsuch posed.
Justice Sonia Sotomayor stated that courts cannot be barred from scrutinizing the evidence in a case.
“Courts do this all the time with hearsay,” she explained. “We inform courts they cannot use hearsay for the truth of the matter, but it can be used for … various other purposes.”
U.S. Department of Justice attorney Masha Hansford argued that Section 3583(e) does not prevent a district court from considering “any factors it deems beneficial during a sentencing or sentence modification hearing.”
She asserted it would be illogical for Congress “to prohibit a court from considering” retribution factors.
The Supreme Court is anticipated to render its decision on the case by the end of June.
