Fernandez v. United States · ¶101

Fernandez's concession that the First Step Act “did not change the substantive standard applicable to” § 3582(c) (1)(A), ante, at 425 (citing Tr. of Oral Arg. 9–12), is not to the contrary. That observation merely states the obvious: that the meaning of “extraordinary and compelling reasons” has always been expansive, leading Congress to conclude that the BOP had been misinterpreting “extraordinary and compelling” all along. See Letter from 12 U. S. Senators 3 (expressing “dee[p] concer[n]” about the BOP's underutilization of compassionate release); § 603(b), 132 Stat. 5239 (titling the First Step Act's amendment to § 3582(c)(1)(A) “Increasing the Use and Transparency of Compassionate Release”). Fernandez seeks to redeem the statute's meaning, not to change it.

preliminary print (page proof)
Source edition
Passage preview. Read in context for the complete text, notes and references.