Maine court: the BOP doesn’t have the final word (2020)

Originally published July 6, 2020. Statements about the law were updated in October 2026; the box below gives today’s rules.

What the law says now (October 2026). A federal judge can reduce a sentence for “extraordinary and compelling” reasons (reasons that are especially unusual and convincing). You must first ask the warden in writing. You can file in court 30 days after the warden gets the request, or sooner if you finish the Bureau of Prisons’ appeals (18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)). The judge also weighs the sentencing factors in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). See who may seek compassionate release.

Changes in sentencing law. In Rutherford v. United States (May 28, 2026), the Supreme Court held that when Congress makes a sentencing change non-retroactive (meaning it does not apply to people already sentenced), such as the First Step Act’s end of “stacked” § 924(c) sentences, the gap between an old sentence and today’s sentence cannot be an “extraordinary and compelling” reason, alone or combined with other reasons. Some older posts here describe court wins on that theory; those wins are history, not today’s law.
Rehabilitation. By law, rehabilitation alone is not an extraordinary and compelling reason (28 U.S.C. § 994(t)). It can be weighed together with other reasons (U.S.S.G. § 1B1.13(d)).
The Sentencing Commission’s policy statement. Since November 1, 2023, U.S.S.G. § 1B1.13 applies to motions filed by prisoners as well as by the Bureau of Prisons, and a reduction must be consistent with it (18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)). Posts from 2020–2023 that say courts were “not bound” by it describe the law before that date. Rutherford (2026) held the policy statement invalid to the extent it lets a non-retroactive change in law count as a reason.

Maine- Federal Court -Rejects- BOP’s -Role in -Criteria for Compassionate Release In U.S. v. Fox, a federal court in Maine said it does not have to agree with the Bureau of Prisons’ Director about what counts as an “extraordinary and compelling” reason for release. The court denied this prisoner’s motion, but it made clear that the judge makes that call.

Before the First Step Act, a prisoner had to meet specific BOP criteria just to get a compassionate release motion filed.

How the First Step Act changed the BOP’s role

Before the First Step Act, the Bureau of Prisons (BOP) decided whether a prisoner met the criteria for compassionate release. That system was flawed from the start. The BOP fully controlled which cases ever reached the district court. As a result, it routinely denied compassionate release petitions, and prisoners had no way to appeal.

The First Step Act of 2018 put federal district courts in control of the compassionate release process. Now, if the BOP refuses to recommend early release, prisoners may file a motion for compassionate release in court themselves.

How courts treated the Sentencing Commission’s policy statement

At first, though, the Sentencing Commission’s policy statement on the criteria for compassionate release did not change. (It was updated effective November 1, 2023. The amended U.S.S.G. § 1B1.13 applies to motions filed by prisoners and replaced the old “as determined by the Director” catch-all with an “other reasons” category the court applies, § 1B1.13(b)(5).) Because the old policy statement came before the new law, some courts at the time treated it as outdated.

Case law at the time also addressed one of the criteria in subsection D of U.S.S.G. § 1B1.13. That subsection said the Director of the BOP could decide whether there were “extraordinary and compelling reasons” not covered by any of the other criteria. As discussed below, some courts chose to use their own discretion to consider those factors instead of leaving them to the BOP Director.

The prisoner’s request in U.S. v. Fox

In U.S v. Walter Fox, the United States District Court for the District of Maine considered a compassionate release petition from a man serving 10 years for bank fraud and attempted tax evasion. He asked for a two-year sentence reduction. The government opposed his motion, and the court found that his petition did not meet the criteria for compassionate release.

What Mr. Fox argued

Mr. Fox filed his motion pro se (without an attorney). He argued that his prison sentence was an extraordinary burden on him and his family. He said he had been rehabilitated in prison and needed medical care for a serious eye condition. The court found that none of these reasons met the criteria for early release.

The court also considered his argument that other people received shorter sentences under recent sentence reduction guidelines. It acknowledged notable cases where sentences were reduced for crimes more serious than his. But the court held that only the Sentencing Commission can impose those reductions. Also, a lower guideline range helps people already in prison only if the Sentencing Commission makes it retroactive (28 U.S.C. § 994(u)).

In the end, the court denied Mr. Fox’s motion without prejudice, meaning he could file again. The court expressly said he can refile if the Sentencing Commission updates its policy statement in a way that helps him. Then his petition could meet the criteria for compassionate release.

How the court viewed the BOP’s role

Although the court denied the petition in U.S. v. Fox, it took a positive step in limiting the BOP’s influence over the criteria for compassionate release. It reasoned that the policy statement in effect then did not control the outcome (it was “not dispositive”) because it was published before the First Step Act changes.

The court did still follow those criteria in evaluating the petition. Where it made helpful progress was in refusing to treat the BOP Director’s findings on “extraordinary or compelling” reasons as controlling. The court decided it would step into that role itself.

In short, the BOP’s findings on the criteria for compassionate release are not the final word on how a court rules on a petition.

What U.S. v. Fox means for future petitions

Prisoners should not focus on the fact that Mr. Fox lost. The important takeaway is that the court, not the Director of the BOP, reviews a case for “extraordinary or compelling” reasons for early release.

The government may oppose a petition for compassionate release. But this case makes clear that courts do not see themselves as bound to accept BOP recommendations either way.

Filing your compassionate release petition

Keep in mind that Mr. Fox did not hire a lawyer to file his petition. A criminal defense attorney could have presented arguments that fit the criteria for compassionate release.

The case also shows why a dismissal without prejudice matters. The court invited Mr. Fox to refile if Congress makes a sentencing guideline reduction retroactive for his offenses. That option is not available after a dismissal with prejudice.

So even if a past petition was dismissed without prejudice, you may still be able to win a sentence reduction later. A defense attorney can help you understand the ruling on an earlier petition and whether you meet the criteria for compassionate release now.

Getting help with a compassionate release petition

It is hard to file a compassionate release petition without a lawyer’s help. This case shows that people who file on their own often struggle to make the right legal arguments.

You do not have to take this on alone. The lawyers at Criminal Center routinely file petitions for compassionate release and understand the process. We also follow Sentencing Commission changes and retroactive guideline reductions. If the Sentencing Commission lowers the guideline range for your offense and makes the change retroactive, the right tool is usually a motion under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2), not compassionate release. A change in the law that was not made retroactive cannot be a reason for compassionate release (U.S.S.G. § 1B1.13(c); Rutherford v. United States (2026)).

If you want help with a compassionate release request, book a consultation.