Sign up to save your podcasts
Or
Share Rutherford v. United States
Share to email
Share to Facebook
Share to X
Share to email
Share to Facebook
Share to X
Or
Rutherford v. United States
Opinion: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/25pdf/24-820_97be.pdf
Case background
Petitioner Daniel Rutherford was convicted of two counts of using and
carrying a firearm during a crime of violence, in violation of 18 U.S.C.
§ 924(c), and petitioner Johnnie Carter was convicted of three § 924(c)
violations. At the time each was sentenced, a defendant convicted of two
§ 924(c) counts faced a mandatory 25-year sentence for the second offense
that was “stacked” upon — run consecutively to — the penalty for the first.
That scheme produced a 32-year minimum sentence for Rutherford and a 57-year
minimum for Carter. Years later, Congress passed the First Step Act of 2018,
which eliminated the 25-year stacking requirement for first-time offenders.
But that amendment does not apply to defendants sentenced before the Act, so
neither Rutherford nor Carter qualifies for the reduced penalties. Each
instead invoked the nonretroactive change as a basis for a sentence reduction
under § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i), the “compassionate release” provision, which allows
a court to reduce a term of imprisonment if it finds, after considering the
§ 3553(a) factors, that “extraordinary and compelling reasons warrant such a
reduction” and that the reduction is consistent with applicable policy
statements issued by the Sentencing Commission. The courts below held that
the nonretroactive change to § 924(c) cannot be an “extraordinary and
compelling” reason; the Third Circuit added that the Commission’s 2023 policy
statement — which lists an “unusually long sentence” among such reasons —
conflicts with the will of Congress. The Court granted certiorari in these
consolidated cases to resolve a split among the Circuits.
Questions Presented
Holding
When Congress declines to make a sentencing amendment retroactive — as with
the change to § 924(c) — the resulting sentencing disparity cannot serve as
an “extraordinary and compelling” reason that warrants a sentence reduction
under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i). Under the ordinary meaning of the words,
“extraordinary and compelling” reasons are those that are especially unusual
and convincing. A disparity created by Congress’s deliberate choice to extend
reduced penalties to some offenders but not others is neither: nonretroactive
amendments to criminal penalties are the norm, so the disparity is an
unexceptional feature of a system in which nonretroactivity is the default,
and treating it as a compelling reason for release would undermine Congress’s
choice to leave the existing sentence intact. Eligibility for compassionate
release is a distinct gatekeeping step that turns on whether a prisoner can
offer “extraordinary and compelling” reasons, not on the § 3553(a) sentencing
factors. Because the statutory text and structure foreclose treating the
§ 924(c) change — considered by itself or in combination with other factors —
as a basis for eligibility, the Sentencing Commission’s contrary 2023 policy
statement is invalid to that extent. 120 F. 4th 360, affirmed.
The Court
Justice Barrett delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Chief Justice
Roberts and Justices Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch, and Kavanaugh joined. Justice
Sotomayor filed a dissenting opinion, in which Justices Kagan and Jackson
joined.
What this episode contains
This episode is an AI-narrated reading of the majority opinion in
Rutherford v. United States, written by Justice Barrett.
AI disclosure: The voice in this episode is AI-generated, using a machine
learning model styled to loosely resemble the authoring justice. Tone,
inflection, pacing, and emphasis are artifacts of the model and should not be
attributed to Justice Barrett. The text being read is the Court’s published
majority opinion, lightly adapted to improve readability for the spoken format.
View all episodes
By So OrderedOpinion: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/25pdf/24-820_97be.pdf
Case background
Petitioner Daniel Rutherford was convicted of two counts of using and
carrying a firearm during a crime of violence, in violation of 18 U.S.C.
§ 924(c), and petitioner Johnnie Carter was convicted of three § 924(c)
violations. At the time each was sentenced, a defendant convicted of two
§ 924(c) counts faced a mandatory 25-year sentence for the second offense
that was “stacked” upon — run consecutively to — the penalty for the first.
That scheme produced a 32-year minimum sentence for Rutherford and a 57-year
minimum for Carter. Years later, Congress passed the First Step Act of 2018,
which eliminated the 25-year stacking requirement for first-time offenders.
But that amendment does not apply to defendants sentenced before the Act, so
neither Rutherford nor Carter qualifies for the reduced penalties. Each
instead invoked the nonretroactive change as a basis for a sentence reduction
under § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i), the “compassionate release” provision, which allows
a court to reduce a term of imprisonment if it finds, after considering the
§ 3553(a) factors, that “extraordinary and compelling reasons warrant such a
reduction” and that the reduction is consistent with applicable policy
statements issued by the Sentencing Commission. The courts below held that
the nonretroactive change to § 924(c) cannot be an “extraordinary and
compelling” reason; the Third Circuit added that the Commission’s 2023 policy
statement — which lists an “unusually long sentence” among such reasons —
conflicts with the will of Congress. The Court granted certiorari in these
consolidated cases to resolve a split among the Circuits.
Questions Presented
Holding
When Congress declines to make a sentencing amendment retroactive — as with
the change to § 924(c) — the resulting sentencing disparity cannot serve as
an “extraordinary and compelling” reason that warrants a sentence reduction
under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i). Under the ordinary meaning of the words,
“extraordinary and compelling” reasons are those that are especially unusual
and convincing. A disparity created by Congress’s deliberate choice to extend
reduced penalties to some offenders but not others is neither: nonretroactive
amendments to criminal penalties are the norm, so the disparity is an
unexceptional feature of a system in which nonretroactivity is the default,
and treating it as a compelling reason for release would undermine Congress’s
choice to leave the existing sentence intact. Eligibility for compassionate
release is a distinct gatekeeping step that turns on whether a prisoner can
offer “extraordinary and compelling” reasons, not on the § 3553(a) sentencing
factors. Because the statutory text and structure foreclose treating the
§ 924(c) change — considered by itself or in combination with other factors —
as a basis for eligibility, the Sentencing Commission’s contrary 2023 policy
statement is invalid to that extent. 120 F. 4th 360, affirmed.
The Court
Justice Barrett delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Chief Justice
Roberts and Justices Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch, and Kavanaugh joined. Justice
Sotomayor filed a dissenting opinion, in which Justices Kagan and Jackson
joined.
What this episode contains
This episode is an AI-narrated reading of the majority opinion in
Rutherford v. United States, written by Justice Barrett.
AI disclosure: The voice in this episode is AI-generated, using a machine
learning model styled to loosely resemble the authoring justice. Tone,
inflection, pacing, and emphasis are artifacts of the model and should not be
attributed to Justice Barrett. The text being read is the Court’s published
majority opinion, lightly adapted to improve readability for the spoken format.