Justices Eye Scope of Compassionate Release ‘Safety Valve’ (1)

The US Supreme Court appeared wary of expanding the limits of what judges can consider when deciding compassionate release petitions from federal inmates.

The justices heard three cases on Wednesday from inmates seeking sentence reductions under the First Step Act of 2018. The bipartisan law implemented a host of criminal justice reforms intended to give judges more latitude when crafting sentences.

Federal circuit courts have split on whether that latitude extends to considering factors in a compassionate release petition that could otherwise form the basis for relief under another method, like a motion to vacate a conviction.

In Fernandez v. United States, petitioner Joe Fernandez asked the justices to reverse the US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, which held he could not argue his potential innocence in seeking to reduce his life sentence in a murder-for-hire plot. The appellate court said factors related to innocence or trial issues could only be raised on direct appeal or in habeas proceedings.

Benjamin Gruenstein, of Cravath, Swain and Moore LLP, representing petitioner Joe Fernandez, said Congress intended the First Step Act to offer a “safety valve” for addressing draconian and otherwise unusually lengthy sentences like his client’s.

“But the question is, safety valve for what?” Justice Elena Kagan asked. “I would not have thought it’s a safety valve to relitigate trial issues.”

The court’s conservatives appeared roundly skeptical of Fernandez’s case. They asked repeatedly whether his position wouldn’t allow all federal inmates to do an “end-run” around the strict limits imposed on Section 2255 motions to vacate convictions.

“Why would you ever bother with 2255?” Justice Amy Coney Barrett asked.

A ruling in Fernandez’s favor could create an entirely new compassionate release docket for district judges to handle, Justice Brett Kavanaugh said. Prior to the First Step Act, such petitions related almost exclusively to inmates with serious medical issues or advanced age.

Commission Concerns

The remaining two cases, filed by two men convicted of armed robbery in Pennsylvania, asked whether inmates should be able to point to a change in law on mandatory minimum sentences for certain gun crimes to argue for compassionate release.

Congress reduced some mandatory minimums in the First Step Act but chose not to make those reductions retroactive. The US Sentencing Commission later updated its guidelines to say judges could consider that change in law when deciding on compassionate release petitions.

Several justices questioned whether the commission had exceeded its authority. Kavanaugh said there appeared to be a separation of powers issue, asking whether the commission had “countermanded” the legislative branch. Justice Neil Gorsuch noted the Sentencing Commission told judges they could treat changes in the law by Congress as presumptively retroactive, but not its own guidelines.

“That seems rather disrespectful to Congress’ work and rather solicitous to its own,” Gorsuch said.

David O’Neil, a Debevoise & Plimpton partner representing petitioner Johnnie Markel Carter, argued Congress had delegated authority to the Sentencing Commission to decide what constitutes an “extraordinary and compelling” reason to grant compassionate release.

The court’s decisions in the cases could have a chilling, or stimulating, effect on compassionate release petitions. The Sentencing Commission reports they have increased dramatically since passage of the First Step Act and the pandemic, with more than 3,000 filed across the country last year.

The cases are Fernandez v. United States, U.S., No. 24-556, Rutherford v. United States, U.S., No. 24-820 and Carter v. United States, U.S., No. 24-860, argued on 11/12/25.