Fernandez v. United States · ¶63

Today, the Court arbitrarily restricts that discretion by grafting an atextual rule onto § 3582(c)(1)(A). It holds that a district court may not base its “extraordinary and compelling” findings on any reason that “collaterally attacks the validity” of the prisoner's conviction. Ante, at 415. Such “attacks,” the majority says, must be brought through motions for habeas relief under 28 U. S. C. § 2255. Ibid. But this restriction comes of out nowhere—it finds no support in the statute's text or history, nor can it be justified by our precedents.

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