The question
Whether the sentencing disparity created when Congress declines to make a sentencing amendment retroactive can qualify as an "extraordinary and compelling" reason warranting a sentence reduction under 18 U.S.C. §3582(c)(1)(A)(i).
Rutherford v. United States
What the Court decided
The Court affirmed. A defendant cannot obtain a sentence reduction under 18 U.S.C. §3582(c)(1)(A)(i) on the ground that a later, nonretroactive sentencing amendment would have lowered his penalty. The disparity that results when Congress declines to make an amendment retroactive is not an "extraordinary and compelling" reason for a reduction, because nonretroactive changes to criminal penalties are the norm rather than an unusual circumstance, and Congress's deliberate choice not to extend reduced penalties to those already sentenced is not a convincing reason to override that choice. The First Step Act's elimination of the 25-year stacking requirement for first-time §924(c) offenders therefore does not warrant relief for defendants sentenced before its enactment.
How the justices split
6-3The Court's opinion
Barrett, joined by Roberts, Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh
The plain text of §3582(c)(1)(A)(i) allows a sentence reduction only for reasons that are especially unusual and convincing. A disparity arising from a nonretroactive amendment is neither. Nonretroactive changes to criminal penalties are the default practice, so such a disparity is unexceptional rather than extraordinary, and Congress's deliberate decision not to extend the reduced §924(c) penalties to defendants already sentenced is not a compelling reason to grant relief.
Dissenting
Sotomayor, joined by Kagan, Jackson
Sotomayor filed a dissenting opinion, joined by Kagan and Jackson, disagreeing with the majority's conclusion that a sentencing disparity produced by a nonretroactive amendment can never qualify as an extraordinary and compelling reason for a reduction under §3582(c)(1)(A)(i).
How we know · 5 sourced claims
The Court held that a disparity from a nonretroactive sentencing amendment cannot be an 'extraordinary and compelling' reason for a reduction under 18 U.S.C. §3582(c)(1)(A)(i).
Source: syllabus, Held
The First Step Act of 2018 eliminated the 25-year stacking requirement for first-time §924(c) offenders, but its amendment does not apply to defendants sentenced before its enactment.
Source: syllabus, Held
The Court reasoned that nonretroactive amendments to criminal penalties are the norm and thus unexceptional, so the resulting disparity is not extraordinary.
Source: syllabus, Held
Barrett delivered the opinion of the Court, joined by Roberts, Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch, and Kavanaugh.
Source: syllabus, lineup
Sotomayor filed a dissenting opinion, joined by Kagan and Jackson.
Source: syllabus, lineup