Fernandez v. United States · ¶53

Fernandez's remaining arguments echo those presented in another case, which we also decide today. See Rutherford v. United States, 608 U. S. 454 (2026). Petitioners in both cases contend that the phrase “extraordinary and compelling reasons” vests courts with broad discretion to grant a prisoner compassionate release for virtually any reason whatsoever. We reject these arguments here for the same reasons we reject them in Rutherford. Id., at 468–472. “While the terms `extraordinary' and `compelling' leave room for judgment, they are not so fexible as to encompass any consideration.” Id., at 468.

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