Supreme Court

    RECENT RULINGS

      ON THE DOCKET

        Alignment is each justice's general judicial philosophy as commonly described, not a party. Justices don't belong to parties, and they don't always vote with their bloc.

        No. 24-820 · October Term 2025

        Rutherford v. United States

        Decided May 28, 2026, 6–3 · From the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit

        Question

        May a district court, when evaluating a motion for compassionate release under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i), consider as an “extraordinary and compelling reason” the fact that a defendant is serving a sentence substantially longer than what would be imposed today due to the First Step Act’s prospective changes to mandatory minimum penalties, particularly where the disparity amounts to decades of additional imprisonment?

        Facts of the case

        In 2003, twenty-two-year-old Daniel Rutherford committed two armed robberies at a Pennsylvania chiropractic office within a five-day period. During the first robbery, he brandished a gun at the chiropractor and stole $390 and a watch. Four days later, he returned to the same office with an accomplice, again pulled a gun, and stole $900 in cash and jewelry. A jury convicted Rutherford of one count of conspiracy to commit Hobbs Act robbery, two counts of Hobbs Act robbery, and two counts of using a firearm during a crime of violence under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c). The district court sentenced Rutherford to 125 months for the robbery-related charges plus mandatory consecutive sentences of 7 years for the first § 924(c) offense and 25 years for the second, totaling nearly 42.5 years in prison. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit affirmed his conviction in 2007, and he did not appeal his sentence. In 2021, Rutherford filed a motion for compassionate release, arguing that changes in federal sentencing law would result in a significantly shorter sentence if he were sentenced today. The district court denied his motion in 2023, and the Third Circuit affirmed the lower court’s denial.

        From Oyez.

        The Court's vote 6–3

        Majority: Amy Coney Barrett, John G. Roberts, Clarence Thomas, Samuel A. Alito, Neil M. Gorsuch, Brett M. Kavanaugh

        Dissent: Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, Ketanji Brown Jackson