Fernandez v. United States · ¶70

Start with the words Congress used in § 3582(c)(1)(A)— they provide the most obvious strike against the majority's newfound rule. Section 3582(c)(1)(A)'s text, while authorizing a sentence reduction, does not refer to § 2255 or habeas review—in any way, shape, or form. Of course, if Congress had intended § 2255 to limit the availability of the compassionate-release remedy, it could easily have said so. This Court has often taken the lack of a cross-reference to mean that two distinct statutory provisions bear no relation to one another. See, e. g., Pugin v. Garland, 599 U. S. 600, 608 (2023); Azar v. Allina Health Services, 587 U. S. 566, 576–577 (2019).

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