US Sentencing Commission's expansion of compassionate release was invalid 'power grab,' court rules

Reuters

24-04-2025

A gavel sits on the chairman's dais in the U.S. House Judiciary Committee hearing room on Capitol Hill in Washington, U.S., June 14, 2019. REUTERS/Jonathan Ernst/File Photo Purchase Licensing Rights, opens new tab
April 23 (Reuters) - A divided federal appeals court ruled that a policy adopted in 2023 by the U.S. Sentencing Commission which allowed judges to deem changes in law as "extraordinary and compelling" reasons justifying granting inmates early release from prison, is invalid and amounts to a "heavy-handed and unseemly power grab."
A 2-1 panel of the Cincinnati-based 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals on Tuesday rejected bids, opens new tab by three inmates serving lengthy prison sentences to be released early based on the commission's new policy, citing the U.S. Supreme Court's landmark ruling in June curbing agencies' regulatory power.
Jumpstart your morning with the latest legal news delivered straight to your inbox from The Daily Docket newsletter. Sign up here.
That decision by the Supreme Court's 6-3 conservative majority scrapped a 40-year-old legal doctrine known as "Chevron deference" that had required courts to defer to federal agencies' interpretations of the laws they administer when those statutes are ambiguous.
U.S. Circuit Judge Alice Batchelder said under that decision, courts no longer need to defer to policy statements from the U.S. Sentencing Commission, a judicial-branch agency charged with crafting sentencing guidelines, just because a statute is ambiguous.
She said the commission's policy statement contradicted the text of the statute governing compassionate release and the 6th Circuit's earlier 2022 interpretation of it holding that a non-retroactive change in the law is not an "extraordinary and compelling reason' for a sentence reduction.
"We conclude that the Commission overstepped its authority and issued a policy statement that is plainly unreasonable under the statute and in conflict with the separation of powers," Batchelder wrote.
As a result, the court rejected arguments by inmates Jason Bricker, Ellis McHenry and Lois Orta that they were deserving of a compassionate release under the commission's policy as they were all serving sentences that were much longer than what they would have received today for the same offense.
Bricker, for example, was serving a 24-1/2 year sentence for a 2005 armed bank robbery, but if re-sentenced today would face a sentencing guidelines range of 70 to 87 months. Tuesday's decision reversed a judge's decision to reduce his sentence.
Batchelder's opinion was joined by U.S. Circuit Judge Chad Readler, a fellow appointee of a Republican president. U.S. Circuit Judge Jane Stranch, an appointee of Democratic President Barack Obama, dissented, saying the majority misconstrued the end of Chevron deference to reach its conclusion.
A spokesperson for the Sentencing Commission declined to comment. Lawyers for the inmates did not respond to requests for comment.
Two of the inmates had sought early release based on changes in law contained in the First Step Act, a bipartisan measure that Republican President Donald Trump signed into law in his first term in 2018 that reformed stricter sentencing laws.
The U.S. Sentencing Commission lost its quorum shortly after the law's enactment, preventing it for three years from updating sentencing guidelines to implement the law, including provisions to provide greater opportunities for inmates to seek compassionate release.
In the absence of any guidance from the panel, courts were left to decide for themselves what circumstances qualified as "extraordinary and compelling" that would warrant granting prisoners' requests for compassionate release, often leading to splits in the courts about how to interpret the law.
The Sentencing Commission finally, under Democratic former President Joe Biden, regained a quorum and on a 4-3 vote in April 2023 approved a policy statement which said that changes in law could be considered "extraordinary and compelling" if a defendant serving at least 10 years had received an "unusually long sentence.
The case is U.S. v. Bricker, 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, No. 24-3286.
For the United States: Andrew Noll of the U.S. Department of Justice
For Bricker: David O'Neil of Debevoise & Plimpton
For McHenry: Christian Grostic of the Office of the Federal Defender, Southern District of Ohio
For Orta: Alex Trieger of Kellogg, Hansen, Todd, Figel & Frederick
Read more:
US appeals court rejects sentencing panel's compassionate release policy
US Supreme Court curbs federal agency powers, overturning 1984 precedent
U.S. panel votes to expand compassionate release for prisoners
U.S. Justice Department tells panel changes in law don't warrant cutting sentences
Reporting by Nate Raymond in Boston
Our Standards: The Thomson Reuters Trust Principles., opens new tab
Nate Raymond
Thomson Reuters
Nate Raymond reports on the federal judiciary and litigation. He can be reached at [e-mail].