Note on Current Legal Landscape: The scope of compassionate release under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A) is currently under review by the U.S. Supreme Court in Fernandez v. United States and Rutherford v. United States. These cases address whether compassionate release may be used to bypass habeas limits or non-retroactive sentencing changes. This post reflects the law as it existed at the time of publication. Once the Supreme Court issues its decisions, this analysis will be revisited. UPDATE: May 28, 2026, the Supreme Court affirmed both Fernandez and Rutherford and limited grounds for compassionate release in federal courts.
If you think compassionate release in the federal courts means only release
from prison for federal prisoners, you’re missing the point. The statute that
governs compassionate release and gives the federal court authority to grant
relief is 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A). The statute is actually titled
“Modification of an Imposed Term of Imprisonment.” Notice that it
doesn’t say anything about “compassionate release” or
“release” at all. Instead, this provision of § 3582 gives a federal
court the authority to change the length of a person’s sentence. Sure, a judge
sometimes reduces a person’s prison sentence to “time served” and
orders their release from prison. But relief is just one type of relief under §
3582.
In fact, the newly expanded version of the so-called “compassionate
release” guideline under the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines, U.S.S.G. §
1B1.13, allows a federal court to reduce an “unusually long” sentence
that would not be imposed if that person were sentenced today. And, once again,
it says nothing about “release” of a prisoner. The guideline is even
called “Reduction in Term of Imprisonment,” and provides numerous
examples when a person’s prison sentence should be reduced.
However, too often I see people in prison asking for outright release under
§ 3582, saying they meet the criteria in U.S.S.G. § 1B1.13. Of course, a
federal judge doesn’t have to consider just the type of relief the person asks
for in their motion. Since most prisoners file their § 3582 motions pro se,
or without the help of a lawyer, a federal judge is supposed to construe the
motion “liberally” and see if any other form of relief could be
granted.
But the reality is that federal judges don’t do that. More often, a motion
titled “compassionate release” is denied simply because the court
assesses whether the person should be released from prison. That’s a high bar
in some cases, especially those just starting an unusually long sentence. Even
worse, the government usually responds that releasing the person would present
a “danger to society,” and this takes the motion down the road where
the prisoner must prove that they would not be a danger to anyone if released.
But why push for release? Why not focus on a reduction in the sentence to
bring it in line with more reasonable sentences being handed out today (if such
a thing exists in the federal system)? The court is required to consider the
factors in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), often called the “sentencing factors”
because these factors are what a court must consider when imposing the original
sentence.
These factors include things like the history of the defendant, the need for
deterrence of others, the need to reflect the seriousness of the crime, etc.
But one of the factors is “the sentencing range established for the
applicable category of offense.” Quite often, a reduction would be needed
to bring the person’s sentence in line with the sentence being handed out for
the same offense today.
This gets ignored once the focus shifts to whether the person would be a
danger if released from prison today. Setting aside that studies continue to
show long prison sentences don’t work to deter crime or rehabilitate anyone, a reduced
sentence is not about releasing someone from prison today. It could be years
from now, but sooner rather than later.
So, why is this kind of relief called “compassionate release?”
Because it used to be that only the Federal Bureau of Prisons could ask a court
to grant relief under § 3582, and the criteria the BOP used was whether someone
was terminally ill with only months to live. Even then, the BOP refused to let
people go home and die with their family around. Congress finally got sick of
the BOP having full control over who can get relief and changed § 3582 in 2018
under the First Step Act. The new statute now allows prisoners to file for §
3582 relief if the BOP refuses to do so. And the criteria for relief have
changed dramatically. No longer does someone have to be on their deathbed.
Hardly any prisoners who have been granted § 3582 relief since 2018 were on
their deathbed.
When a prisoner and their team hire me to handle a § 3582 motion, I don’t
title it “compassionate release.” I title it as the statute says:
“Motion for Reduction of Sentence Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582.”
Period. If the word “release” is mentioned in the motion, I’m either
quoting another case’s words, or focusing on the rare instance where release is
the relief being sought.
If I can offer any advice to law firms filing for “compassionate
release” for their clients, don’t focus on the “release” part of
the relief. If you’re seeking a reduced sentence, say so. Focus on that.
If the government responds that release would not be appropriate, and it will, turn
the court’s focus back on the relief being sought: a reduced sentence, and why
that would be the proper relief.
Leave a Reply