Appeals Court Denies Policy Change Aimed at Expanding Early Prisoner Release Options
U.S. Circuit Judge Kent A. Jordan wrote, “Congress made the change non-retroactive. No matter how well-intentioned, the Policy Statement cannot change that.”
A federal appeals court has ruled that a recent U.S. Sentencing Commission policy allowing judges to order the early release of certain prisoners exceeded the scope of a law passed by Congress.
The First Step Act, signed into law by former President Donald Trump in 2018, gave prisoners the ability to request early release based on exceptional and compelling reasons. In 2023, the Sentencing Commission approved a policy change that allowed judges to consider alterations in the law when deciding on early release petitions.
Daniel Rutherford, convicted of two armed robberies in 2003 and sentenced to 42 years and five months, requested a sentence reduction, arguing that changes in the law would have significantly reduced his sentence if he were sentenced under current laws.
However, a federal judge in 2023 denied the petition, noting that the provision of the First Step Act under consideration by Congress was not retroactive. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit agreed on Nov. 1, stating that the commission’s policy change conflicted with Congress’s intent.
U.S. Circuit Judge D. Brooks Smith and U.S. District Judge Renée Marie Bumb also supported the decision.
Related Stories
Both the Sentencing Commission and a lawyer representing Rutherford did not provide comments when requested.
The Department of Justice, supported by the ruling, argued in court filings that the First Step Act “does not allow for sentence reductions based on non-retroactive changes in sentencing law.”
The lawyers contended that modifications in laws do not meet the standards of being extraordinary.
Previously, judges could reduce sentences if there were “extraordinary and compelling reasons” for a reduction. The Sentencing Commission identified reasons such as specific medical conditions as permissible for reduction.
The First Step Act broadened this law, allowing prisoners in addition to the Bureau of Prisons to request early release.
Due to a lack of quorum, the Commission could not issue a policy statement following the enactment of the First Step Act until 2023, when it was approved by a narrow vote of 4–3.
The updated policy stated that judges could consider non-retroactive changes in laws as extraordinary and compelling in cases where a defendant received a disproportionately long sentence and had completed at least 10 years in prison, considering the individual circumstances of the defendant.
In a dissenting opinion, the three members voting against the updated policy expressed concerns over making significant structural changes to the criminal justice system without Congressional approval and highlighted separation of powers issues.
The appeals court emphasized the clarity of the First Step Act on the matter.
“When it comes to the modification of § 924(c), Congress has already taken retroactivity off the table, so we cannot rightly consider it,” Jordan wrote on behalf of the panel.
The ruling did not directly apply to the Sentencing Commission as it is outside the executive branch. However, Jordan noted the ruling’s relevance as they considered whether the Commission’s view of a statute should supersede their own.
