Rutherford v. United States
608 U. S. 454 (2026) · 5/28/26
When Congress declines to make a sentencing amendment retroactive—as with the change to 18 U. S. C. §924(c)—the resulting sentencing disparity cannot serve as an “extraordinary and compelling” reason that warrants a sentence reduction under §3582(c)(1)(A)(i).
Edition: preliminary print (page proof)
Voices: Syllabus — prepared by the Reporter of Decisions · Justice Barrett delivered the opinion of the Court. · Justice Sotomayor, with whom Justice Kagan and Justice Jackson join, dissenting.
Petitioner Daniel Rutherford was convicted of two counts of using and carrying a frearm during a crime of violence, in violation of 18 U. S. C. § 924(c). Petitioner Johnnie Carter was convicted of three § 924(c) violations. At the time each was sentenced, a defendant convicted of two § 924(c) counts was subject to a mandatory 25-year sentence for the second offense that would be “stacked” upon (i. e., run consecutively to) the first offense's mandatory penalty. That sentencing scheme resulted in a 32-year minimum sentence for Rutherford's § 924(c) violations and a 57-year minimum sentence for…
certiorari to the same court. roactive change to sentencing law is an “extraordinary and compelling reaso[n]” that warrants compassionate release.Read it in the reading room ›