Supreme Court: Non-Retroactive Sentencing Changes Can't Support Compassionate Release

If your loved one's compassionate release motion depends on the First Step Act's change to "stacked" § 924(c) sentences, the Supreme Court has shut that door. On May 28, 2026, in Rutherford v. United States, the Court ruled 6–3 against the prisoners.

The First Step Act of 2018 ended the 25-year "stacking" penalty for a second § 924(c) count. But Congress did not make that change retroactive. People sentenced before 2018 kept their long sentences.

In 2023, the Sentencing Commission added an "unusually long sentence" reason to its policy statement, USSG §1B1.13. Some courts used it to reduce stacked sentences. The Supreme Court held that when Congress chooses not to make a sentencing change retroactive, the gap it creates cannot be an "extraordinary and compelling" reason for release. That is true whether the change is used alone or combined with other reasons. The Court said the policy statement is invalid "to the extent" it says otherwise.

What this means for your family

A motion built mainly on "the law changed and my sentence is now too long" will likely fail. But compassionate release still exists for other reasons the policy statement lists:

• Serious medical conditions
• Advanced age with declining health
• Family situations, such as the death or disability of a child's caregiver
• Abuse in custody

Strong medical and family proof matters more than ever.

Your next step

If a motion is pending on stacking grounds, have it reviewed now to see whether other grounds fit. Book a consultation to talk about your case.