US Supreme Court Struggles With Dispute Over Supervised Release

The US Supreme Court pressed the Justice Department over its stance that supervised release must pause when a defendant absconds, or stops reporting to a probation officer.

The government voiced concerns at argument on Monday that without such a framework in agreement with the so-called fugitive tolling doctrine, a person could abscond and render terms of supervised release a “nullity.”

But an ideological mix of justices struggled with how the DOJ scenario aligned with the law and congressional intent over federal court jurisdiction and sentencing on such matters.

The government already went to Congress in an effort to amend a section of the 1984 Sentencing Reform Act dealing with a violation of supervised release, conservative Justice Neil Gorsuch said.

“Congress has proven pretty solicitous in this area,” he said. “And the alternative is for us to create a fugitive tolling doctrine pretty whole cloth.”

Liberal justices Ketanji Brown Jackson and Sonia Sotomayor also questioned whether the government’s theory of abscondment amounted to extending a period of punishment.

“The traditional tolling is that the clock stops with respect to the obligation when you run away, and it picks up again when you’re found again,” Jackson said. “So it seems to me that what you’re actually asking for is an extension rule.”

‘Very Narrow Question’

The underlying issue stems from the case of Isabel Rico, as well as the question of what the sentencing guidelines call for when a defendant violates supervised release by absconding.

Rico lost touch with her probation officer during a four-year supervised-release term stemming from a drug trafficking conviction. She was later arrested by state authorities for evading a police officer, driving without a license, and possessing drug paraphernalia, according to briefs submitted in court.

A probation officer subsequently brought a motion alleging Rico violated her supervised-release, citing in part her 2022 drug conviction. It was listed as a Grade A violation, carrying stiffer punishment under sentencing guidelines.

But Rico’s lawyers have argued the drug conviction shouldn’t be a factor because it happened after her supervised release term expired in 2021.

Rico’s counsel, Adam Unikowsky of Jenner & Block, said there is no textual support for fugitive tolling in supervised release cases compared to someone who escapes from prison, and so the trial court in her case didn’t have jurisdiction to rule the way it did.

He also stressed that defendants in supervised release cases would still be subject to prosecution and punishment for new crimes committed. “It’s only a very narrow question of whether that offense increases her guidelines range,” he told the justices.

Justice Clarence Thomas opened questioning by noting that the government appeared to be making a “simple point”—that supervised release doesn’t include time when a defendant isn’t being supervised.

The DOJ said common law principles should prevail in such cases, but it acknowledges a “lopsided disagreement” within the circuit courts on the question. Four have found the tolling doctrine applies. Two others say lower courts lack jurisdiction.

Supervised release terms are a common part of the US criminal justice system. Over 109,000 individuals were subject to one as of fiscal year 2023, according to a brief submitted by Rico.

The case is Rico v. US, U.S., 24-1056, argument, 11/3/25.