Rutherford v. United States · ¶69

The question now before the Court is whether the Commission permissibly exercised its delegated authority to permit courts to consider sentencing disparities created by non- retroactive changes in law, among other factors, in deciding compassionate release motions. Answering that question properly begins with Congress's express delegation of authority to “[t]he Commission” to define, in the first instance, “what should be considered extraordinary and compelling reasons for sentence reduction, including the criteria to be applied and a list of specific examples” through the “promulgati[on]” of “policy statements.” 28 U. S. C. § 994(t). This provision could hardly be clearer that the Commission has primary say over what qualifes as “extraordinary and compelling reasons for sentence reduction.” Ibid.

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