Skip to content
Project Curia
Supreme Court decisions
No. 23-7483Jun 20, 2025Crime and Law EnforcementReversed

The question

Whether a district court deciding whether to revoke a defendant's term of supervised release may consider 18 U.S.C. Section 3553(a)(2)(A), the retribution factor that Section 3583(e) omits from the factors governing revocation.

Esteras v. United States

What the Court decided

The Court reversed the Sixth Circuit. A district court considering whether to revoke a defendant's term of supervised release may not consider 18 U.S.C. Section 3553(a)(2)(A), the factor addressing the need for a sentence to reflect the seriousness of the offense, promote respect for the law, and provide just punishment. Section 3583(e) directs courts to weigh only eight of the ten Section 3553(a) sentencing factors, and Section 3553(a)(2)(A) is one of the two omitted. Under the expressio unius canon, listing eight factors implies the exclusion of the other two.

How the justices split

7-2
In favor 7Against 2
Barrett
Roberts
Thomas
Kagan
Kavanaugh
Sotomayor
Jackson
Alito
Gorsuch

The Court's opinion

Barrett, joined by Roberts, Thomas, Kagan, Kavanaugh, Sotomayor, Jackson

Held that district courts may not consider Section 3553(a)(2)(A) when revoking supervised release. Section 3583(e) lists only eight of the ten Section 3553(a) factors, and under the expressio unius canon, expressing those eight excludes the two Congress omitted, including the retribution factor. The statutory structure confirms this negative inference. Sotomayor and Jackson joined all but Part II-B.

Concurring in part and in the judgment

Sotomayor, joined by Jackson

Agreed with the Court's judgment and joined most of its opinion but did not join Part II-B, writing separately to explain a narrower basis for the result.

Concurring in part and in the judgment

Jackson, writing alone

Agreed with the Court's judgment and joined most of its opinion but did not join Part II-B, writing separately to state her own reasoning.

Dissenting

Alito, joined by Gorsuch

Disagreed with the majority's reading of the statute and would have held that a district court may consider Section 3553(a)(2)(A) when revoking supervised release.

How we know · 5 sourced claims
  • The Court held that a district court considering whether to revoke supervised release may not consider Section 3553(a)(2)(A).

    Source: syllabus, Held

  • Section 3583(e) directs courts to consider only eight of the ten Section 3553(a) sentencing factors when revoking supervised release.

    Source: syllabus, Held

  • The Court relied on the expressio unius est exclusio alterius canon, reasoning that listing eight factors implies the exclusion of the other two.

    Source: syllabus, Held

  • Barrett delivered the opinion of the Court, joined in full by Roberts, Thomas, Kagan, and Kavanaugh, and joined by Sotomayor and Jackson as to all but Part II-B.

    Source: syllabus, lineup

  • Alito filed a dissenting opinion, in which Gorsuch joined.

    Source: syllabus, lineup

Read the opinion on supremecourt.gov