Rutherford v. United States · ¶51
Petitioners misunderstand the Commission's role. Congress has empowered the Commission to “give meaning” to the compassionate release provision by identifying the circumstances that constitute “extraordinary and compelling” reasons for release. Loper Bright Enterprises v. Rai mondo, 603 U. S. 369, 394 (2024). Even so, the Commission's policy statements must be “consistent with” the governing statute, 28 U. S. C. § 994(a), and courts have a duty to “independently interpret the statute and effectuate the will of Congress,” 603 U. S., at 395. We are not bound to follow the Commission's guidance when it “exceed[s its] statutory authority” by adopting a definition of a term that is inconsistent with the statute. Batterton v. Francis, 432 U. S. 416, 426 (1977). Put differently, the Commission's interpretation must land within the statutory goalposts, no matter how wide they might be. Cf.…Read in context ›
preliminary print (page proof)
Source edition
Passage preview. Read in context for the complete text, notes and references.