US Sentencing Commission's expansion of compassionate release was invalid 'power grab,' court rules
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 nate.raymond@thomsonreuters.com.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Glasgow Times
2 hours ago
- Glasgow Times
Trump says he is open to regime change in Iran
'It's not politically correct to use the term, 'Regime Change,' but if the current Iranian Regime is unable to MAKE IRAN GREAT AGAIN, why wouldn't there be a Regime change???' Mr Trump posted on social media. 'MIGA!!!' The posting on Truth Social marked something of a reversal from defence secretary Pete Hegseth's Sunday morning news conference that detailed the aerial bombing on three of the country's nuclear sites. 'This mission was not and has not been about regime change,' Mr Hegseth said. "The damage to the Nuclear sites in Iran is said to be 'monumental.' The hits were hard and accurate. Great skill was shown by our military. Thank you!" –President Donald J. Trump — The White House (@WhiteHouse) June 22, 2025 Secretary of state Marco Rubio warned on Fox News that any retaliation against the US or a rush toward building a nuclear weapon would 'put the regime at risk'. Mr Trump's warning to Iran's leadership comes as the US has demanded that Iran not respond to the bombardment of the heart of a nuclear programme it spent decades developing. The Trump administration has made a series of intimidating statements even as it has simultaneously called to restart negotiations, making it hard to get a complete read on whether the president is simply taunting an adversary or using inflammatory words that could further widen the war between Israel and Iran that began earlier this month. Up until the president's post on Sunday afternoon, the coordinated messaging by Mr Trump's vice president, Pentagon chief, top military adviser and secretary of state suggested a confidence that any fallout would be manageable and that Iran's lack of military capabilities would ultimately force it back to the bargaining table. Mr Hegseth had said that America 'does not seek war' with Iran, while Vice President JD Vance said the strikes have given Tehran the possibility of returning to negotiate with Washington. But the unfolding situation is not entirely under Washington's control, as Tehran has a series of levers to respond to the aerial bombings, which could intensify the conflict in the Middle East with possible global repercussions. Defence Secretary Pete Hegseth speaks during a news conference at the Pentagon on Sunday (Alex Brandon/AP) Iran can block oil being shipped through the Strait of Hormuz, attack US bases in the region, engage in cyber attacks or double down on a nuclear programme might seem like more of a necessity after the US strike. Mr Trump, who had addressed the nation from the White House on Saturday night, returned to social media on Sunday to lambast Republican Congress member Thomas Massie, who had objected to the president taking military action without specific congressional approval. 'We had a spectacular military success yesterday, taking the 'bomb' right out of their hands (and they would use it if they could!)' Mr Trump said as part of the post on Truth Social. At their joint Pentagon briefing, Mr Hegseth and Air Force General Dan Caine, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said 'Operation Midnight Hammer' involved decoys and deception, and met with no Iranian resistance. General Caine indicated that the goal of the operation — destroying nuclear sites in Fordo, Natanz and Isfahan — had been achieved. 'Final battle damage will take some time, but initial battle damage assessments indicate that all three sites sustained extremely severe damage and destruction,' he said. An electronic billboard beams an image of president Donald Trump alongside the message 'Thank you, Mr. President' referring to the US involvement in the war between Israel and Iran (Bernat Armangue/AP) Mr Trump asserted on his Truth Social platform that Iran's nuclear sites sustained 'monumental damage' in the American attack, although a US assessment on the strikes is still underway and Iran has not said how much damage was done in the attack. 'The biggest damage took place far below ground level. Bullseye!!!' he wrote. Israeli army spokesman Effie Defrin said: 'the damage is deep,' but an assessment with the US continued. 'We are very close to achieving our goals' in removing Iran's nuclear and missile threats, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said late on Sunday. The Israeli military confirmed other attacks late on Sunday, which included strikes on Hamedan and Kermanshah in western Iran, as well as strikes in Tehran, Iran's capital. Israel also hit what its military described as a missile production site in Shahroud. Iranian state media reported air defence systems were firing in Tehran early on Monday, while explosions could be heard in the nearby city of Karaj. A social media account associated with Iran's supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, published a propaganda post on Monday portraying missile strikes on a darkened city with a giant skull bearing the Star of David on it. 'The punishment continues,' the poster read. Protesters carry signs during a protest in New York on Sunday against US strikes on Iran (Olga Fedorova/AP) Israeli strikes on Iran have killed at least 950 people and wounded 3,450 others, according to the Washington-based group Human Rights Activists. The group said of those dead, it identified 380 civilians and 253 security force personnel. In Israel, at least 24 people have been killed and more than 1,000 wounded. While US officials urged caution and stressed that only nuclear sites were targeted by Washington, Iran criticised the actions as a violation of its sovereignty and international law. Iran's foreign minister Abbas Araghchi said Washington was 'fully responsible' for whatever actions Tehran may take in response. 'They crossed a very big red line by attacking nuclear facilities,' he said at a news conference in Turkey. 'I don't know how much room is left for diplomacy.' China and Russia, where Araghchi was heading for talks with President Vladimir Putin, condemned the US military action. The attacks were 'a gross violation of international law,' said Russia's Foreign Ministry, which also advocated 'returning the situation to a political and diplomatic course.' A Turkish Foreign Ministry statement warned about the risk of the conflict spreading to 'a global level'. British Prime Minister Keir Starmer said the United Kingdom was moving military equipment into the area to protect its interests, people and allies. His office said he talked on Sunday with Mr Trump about the need for Tehran to resume negotiations, but Mr Trump would have posted his remarks about regime change after their conversation. The leaders of Italy, Canada, Germany and France agreed on the need for 'a rapid resumption of negotiations.' France's Emmanuel Macron held talks with the Saudi Crown Prince and the Sultan of Oman. Australian foreign minister Penny Wong told Channel Nine news that her government endorsed the strikes, but said 'ultimately we want to see de-escalation and diplomacy'.
The Herald Scotland
3 hours ago
- The Herald Scotland
Trump says Iran's nuclear sites were 'obliterated.' Were they?
"Final battle damage will take some time, but initial battle damage assessments indicate that all three sites sustained extremely severe damage and destruction," Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Dan Caine told reporters a day after the strikes on June 22. The International Atomic Energy Agency, which is the main agency that assesses the scale and evolution of Iran's nuclear program, said hostilities would need to cease for it to resume inspections. The organization, housed within the United Nations, said it would hold an emergency meeting June 23. Trump said Iran's nuclear sites were obliterated It was not entirely clear what evidence or intelligence Trump was relying on when he told the world that Iran's nuclear enrichment capacity had been destroyed. He also disputed twice disputed intelligence community findings before the strike that Iran was not close to producing a nuclear weapon. "Tonight, I can report to the world that the strikes were a spectacular military success," Trump said in a late-night June 21 address. "Iran's key nuclear enrichment facilities have been completely and totally obliterated." Hegseth used similar rhetoric at a morning news conference, saying that thanks to Trump's leadership, "Iran's nuclear ambitions have been obliterated." But a battle damage assessment is ongoing, Hegseth acknowledged during in the briefing. He noted it was the Pentagon's "initial assessment" its precision munitions had the desired effect. "Especially in Fordow, which was the primary target here. We believe we achieved destruction of capabilities there," Hegseth told reporters. Caine was more cautious. "It would be way too early for me to comment on what may or may not still be there," he said when asked about Iran's remaining nuclear capabilities during the same news conference. Live updates: US warns of 'heightened threat environment' after strikes on Iran nukes How much of a hit did Iran take? It was a "responsible" comment from Caine, said Simone Ledeen, the deputy assistant secretary of defense for the Middle East in Trump's first administration. Whether the Iranian nuclear program was set back a decade or decades and whether there is no more nuclear program period "really needs to be determined by a systematic battle damage assessment," she said. Yet, given what the president and secretary of defense know of the bombs that were dropped and where, Ledeen added, "I don't think it's far-fetched for them to say that these sites were destroyed." Democratic lawmakers on committees that oversee the military, intelligence community and foreign policy apparatus are pushing for classified briefings to help them reach their own conclusions. "There is a lot we still don't know and we need an accurate, factual damage assessment," Senate Armed Services ranking member Jack Reed, D-Rhode Island, said in a statement. Senate Foreign Relations ranking member Jeanne Shaheen also said in a statement, "We are still waiting to understand the extent to which that action has deterred Iran's nuclear threat." "President Trump must now de-escalate tensions with Iran and immediately brief Congress," the New Hampshire Democrat said. Vice President JD Vance did not specify the extent of the damage to Iran's sites as he made a round of television interviews the morning after the strike. "But we know that we've set the Iranian nuclear program back substantially last night," Vance said on ABC News' "This Week" program. "Whether it's years or beyond that, we know it's going to be a very long time before Iran can even build a nuclear weapon if they want to." Iran claims its uranium stockpiles were evacuated Iran's IRIB state broadcaster claimed its stockpiles of enriched uranium were "evacuated" from all threes sites prior to the U.S. strikes, another assertion not independently verified. Russian Security Council deputy chairman of Dmitry Medvedev also said Iran's critical nuclear infrastructure appeared to be unaffected or to have sustained only minor damage. "The enrichment of nuclear material - and, now we can say it outright, the future production of nuclear weapons - will continue," Medvedev said in a social media thread. "A number of countries are ready to directly supply Iran with their own nuclear warheads." Russia is an ally of Tehran's, and Medvedev is a previous Russian president. Israeli forces could try to enter Iran's nuclear sites in a sensitive operation and make a determination for itself and the United States, said Ledeen, the first-term Trump defense official. But an official assessment will have to be conducted by the IAEA, which says it can not go in until the conflict ends, for the international community to accept it. "I hope it is the end, so IAEA can get their inspectors in there sooner rather than later," Ledeen said. "You also don't want loose material getting into the wrong hands." Contributing: Kim Hjelmgaard
The Herald Scotland
3 hours ago
- The Herald Scotland
From immigration to women's sports, Trump gets it right
Trump timed his missive shortly after nationwide "No Kings" protests that in part criticized his immigration agenda, as well as the chaotic and violent protests in Los Angeles this month in response to ICE raids. Opinion: Democrats scream democracy is in peril ... while proving that it's absolutely fine Liberals may be freaking out, but the reality is that Trump is following through on his promises to restore safety at the southern border and to deport as many illegal immigrants as possible. It was one of the pivotal reasons Trump won a second term. And the majority of the country is still on the president's side. Polling confirms Americans want Trump to fulfill immigration agenda Immigration remains Trump's strongest issue. A recent NBC News Decision Desk poll found that 51% of Americans approve of Trump's handling of border security and immigration; 49% disapprove. The poll was conducted while Trump was sending in the National Guard and Marines to help contain rioting in LA. Similarly, a CBS News/YouGov poll from earlier in June found the majority of Americans side with Trump's deportation agenda. In that survey, 54% said they approve of the administration's program to deport illegal immigrants, and the largest group - 42% - say these policies are making the country safer. Opinion: Hey, Democrats, LA riots make Americans like me glad Trump is president However, while 55% of those surveyed say they like Trump's deportation goals, just 44% like the way Trump is fulfilling that agenda. The gap between approval of Trump's goals versus his execution of those goals is seen in other areas, too, including the economy. Let's face it: Trump is Trump, and he's consistent in his unpredictability and bravado. Voters should have known by this point what they were getting. Yet, for the most part, he is standing firm on his immigration goals. Within weeks, Trump had effectively closed the border that former President Joe Biden had opened wide. Monthly border encounters have dropped to record lows, to fewer than 10,000 a month from more than 100,000 a year ago. That means far fewer migrants face deportation after illegally entering the United States. So while Trump is getting all the Democratic outrage, his deportation numbers as of late May remain below Biden's during a similar period of time. And former President Barack Obama - darling of the left - maintains the title of "deporter in chief." Opinion: Democrats waste $20 million to learn why they lost men. Here's my free advice. Are Democrats OK? They keep getting arrested to protest Trump. But why let facts get in the way of feelings? Through protests, riots and civil disobedience, Democrats have put their feelings on full display lately. Even public officials are getting in on the performance art. In recent weeks, a growing number of people in power have decided it is politically expedient to interfere directly with the work of immigration officers. For their disobedience, these Democrats have been handcuffed or charged, which seems to have been what they wanted in the first place. The latest example is New York City comptroller and mayoral candidate Brad Lander, who was arrested June 17 "after he linked arms with a person authorities were attempting to detain" in federal immigration court. Members of Congress, a Wisconsin judge and a mayor also have joined the ranks of those flouting the law. To what end, though, given Trump is doing what voters want him to do? Opinion alerts: Get columns from your favorite columnists + expert analysis on top issues, delivered straight to your device through the USA TODAY app. Don't have the app? Download it for free from your app store. It's also worth noting that while progressives want you to think Trump's approval as president has tanked beyond repair, his 46.4% approval rating is higher than where Obama (45.8%) and former President George W. Bush (45.6%) were at this point in their second terms. From transgender athletes in women's sports to halting illegal immigration, Democrats keep finding themselves on the wrong side of issues that Americans care about. Good for Trump for getting it right. Ingrid Jacques is a columnist at USA TODAY. Contact her at ijacques@ or on X, formerly Twitter: @Ingrid_Jacques
