Rutherford v. United States · ¶112

In the end, the majority is unable to explain why exactly the Commission's case-by-case approach is inconsistent with Congress's categorical nonretroactivity decision. See ante, at 471–472. After acknowledging that it is “[t]rue” that Congress merely made a judgment about categorical retroactivity, the majority takes aim at something different altogether: mandatory minimums. See ibid. In the majority's view, permitting holistic consideration of all relevant evidence, including changes in law, would also permit judges to grant relief based on their personal view that a mandatory- minimum sentence is too harsh. Ibid.

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