Rutherford v. United States

The Supreme Court limited federal courts' authority to grant compassionate release under the First Step Act in Rutherford v. United States and Fernandez v. United States. The decisions emphasized Congress's role in criminal law and restricted lower courts from overriding Congressional judgments. The rulings addressed statutory interpretations of 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c) and abrogated prior appellate court decisions allowing broad judicial discretion in sentence reductions.

The Supreme Court has limited the First Step Act's impact through decisions narrowing its provisions, including the safety valve and compassionate release criteria. Cases like Pulsifer v. United States and Rutherford v. United States restricted the Act's ability to provide individualized sentencing relief to incarcerated individuals.

The Supreme Court ruled that challenges to a defendant's conviction cannot serve as 'extraordinary and compelling reasons' for compassionate release, emphasizing that such challenges must be addressed through habeas corpus procedures. In two cases, Fernandez v. United States and Rutherford v. United States, the Court held that arguments questioning conviction validity or changes to sentencing laws do not qualify for compassionate release under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c).

Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor attended jury duty in D.C. Superior Court but was not required to serve, later having lunch with judges. The Supreme Court released opinions in four cases, including decisions on federal sentencing guidelines, death penalty procedures, and the Federal Arbitration Act.