The Supreme Court will consider whether prisoners sentenced before the First Step Act was enacted are entitled to have their sentences reduced to match standards established by the seven-year-old law.
The bipartisan legislation approved by Congress and signed by President Donald Trump in 2018 reformed aspects of the criminal justice system, making it easier for the courts to reduce penalties for certain offenders.
The Supreme Court granted the petitions on June 6 in Rutherford v. United States and Carter v. United States in an unsigned order. No justices dissented. The court did not explain its decision.
The two men who brought these appeals argue that individuals who are sentenced nowadays face mandatory minimum imprisonment terms of shorter durations than they would have been given before the First Step Act took effect. Mandatory minimum sentencing laws take away judges’ discretionary authority and require specific minimum periods of incarceration for certain crimes.
Convicted before the enactment of the First Step Act, the prisoners applied under a federal compassionate release statute for sentence reductions after the First Step Act took effect. Courts denied their requests.
The compassionate release statute allows a court to scale back a sentence if it determines there are “extraordinary and compelling reasons” justifying relief, according to a summary of petitioner Daniel Rutherford’s petition filed with the Supreme Court.
Section 994 of 28 U.S. Code states that rehabilitation of a prisoner by itself may not count as an “extraordinary and compelling” reason. That statute also says an “extraordinary and compelling” reason also has to be consistent with policy statements issued by the U.S. Sentencing Commission, the summary said.
Sections 401 and 403 of the First Step Act provided reduced penalties going forward for certain firearm and drug offenses.
“Because of these changes, individuals sentenced today for these offenses often face mandatory minimum terms of imprisonment decades shorter than they would have received before the First Step Act,” the summary states.
The Supreme Court has agreed to consider whether federal district courts may consider the disparities in sentences created by the First Step Act if “extraordinary and compelling reasons” justify a sentence reduction under the compassionate release statute. Six federal courts of appeals allow federal district courts to factor in the disparities, while four courts of appeals do not, the summary said.
In the petitions granted on June 6, the prisoners argued that as a result of the First Step Act, they are entitled to sentence reductions.
In 2003, Rutherford carried out two armed robberies in Philadelphia in a five-day period, according to his petition filed on Jan. 30.
He was convicted on two counts of federal Hobbs Act robbery, one count of conspiracy to commit Hobbs Act robbery, and two counts of using a firearm while committing a crime of violence. The Hobbs Act is a federal statute that forbids robbery and other crimes that affect interstate or foreign commerce.
A federal district court sentenced him to 42.5 years of imprisonment.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit affirmed, but two members of the panel said the sentence “would be unthinkable in many state systems for these underlying facts,” the petition said.
Rutherford filed under the compassionate release statute in April 2021.
He argued his case was “extraordinary and compelling” and that he was given an “unusually long sentence” under a mandatory minimum sentencing rule that Congress later abandoned. If he had been sentenced after the First Step Act took effect, the sentence would have been 18 years shorter, the petition said.
A federal district court denied his request to reduce the sentence. Later, the Third Circuit affirmed.
In 2007, petitioner Johnnie Markel Carter participated in a series of armed bank robberies, according to his petition filed on Feb. 11.
He was convicted on two counts of conspiracy, three counts of armed bank robbery, and three counts of using a firearm while committing a crime of violence. He was sentenced to 70 years in prison.
At the time, the trial judge said the sentence was “high and probably longer than necessary to accomplish the legitimate purposes of federal sentencing.” If sentenced today on the same charges, under current law, the sentence could have been shortened by 21 years or more, the petition said.
Carter applied to review the sentence under the compassionate release statute. The federal district court dismissed the motion. The Third Circuit affirmed in December 2024.
The Supreme Court is expected to hear the cases, which have been consolidated and will be heard together, in its new term that begins in October.
This article by Matthew Vadum appeared June 10, 2025, in The Epoch Times.