WASHINGTON, DC – Following the Supreme Court’s decision in Fernandez v. United States, a case in which the Court considered the scope of a sentencing judge’s discretion to grant compassionate release under the Sentencing Reform Act, Constitutional Accountability Center Senior Appellate Counsel Smita Ghosh issued the following reaction:

Drawing on a centuries-long tradition of granting wide discretion to judges when imposing sentences, the Sentencing Reform Act of 1984 allows federal judges to reduce a previously imposed sentence when they conclude that there are “extraordinary and compelling reasons” to do so. Today, a majority of the Supreme Court interpreted this provision of the statute—often called the “compassionate release” provision—to contain an unwritten limit on the types of reasons that a judge can consider “extraordinary” or “compelling.”

This was wrong. As Justice Jackson explained in dissent, and CAC’s brief in this case made clear, Congress designed compassionate release as, in Jackson’s words, “a tool for preserving a modicum of mercy in an otherwise harsh sentencing system.” It created this provision—and used the words “extraordinary” and “compelling”—in response to requests from sentencing judges for the broad authority to take a “second look” at previously imposed sentences to prevent unfairness.

The Court’s majority ignored this text and history. Its decision will not only affect federal prisoners seeking compassion, but undermine its own instruction that a text-and-history approach should apply to every case, no matter who brings it.