Justice Delayed, or Justice Denied? A SCOTUS Battle Over 2nd Chances

Varun Mekala

November 2025

This is not about boring legal statutes but about decades in a cell while the country around evolved. The Supreme Court has consolidated two explosive cases, Rutherford v. United States (24-820) and Carter v. United States (24-860), that together will determine whether federal judges can right a monumental wrong.

The issue is a "compassionate release" statute that allows a judge to cut a sentence on the basis of "extraordinary and compelling reasons." But can one of those reasons be the truth that someone is serving a sentence vastly longer than they would if sentenced today?

Daniel Rutherford was sentenced to nearly 42.5 years on charges of two armed robberies. Johnnie Markel Carter's sentence was 70 years for the crime of armed bank robberies.

They were convicted under the old version of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c), which dealt with firearm offenses. Under that law, a second or subsequent firearm charge required a consecutive 25-year mandatory minimum. They “stacked” together, turning long sentences into life sentences.

In 2018, Congress enacted the landmark reform known as the First Step Act that capped this harsh stacking practice. It was an unmistakable admission that the old law was excessive. But Congress chose to make the change prospective, meaning it didn't automatically help those already incarcerated, like Rutherford and Carter.

Now, the legal loophole: compassionate releases. The Sentencing Commission intervened, producing new guidance that said courts could consider such non-retroactive sentencing disparities in deciding whether "extraordinary and compelling reasons" existed to grant relief.

The battle is over this very power: did the Sentencing Commission have the authority to create this new mechanism, or did they overstep their bounds by attempting to grant relief that Congress had explicitly denied retroactively?

The circuits irreconcilably divide. Federal courts in half the country permit a judge to consider this discrepancy a basis for release; the other half say their hands are tied. The question now before the Supreme Court is whether the words "extraordinary and compelling" describe a narrow, inflexible box delineated only by Congress, or if they leave room for a judge to exercise broad judgment in recognizing injustice? 

Rutherford and Carter are not asking for a free pass; they are asking for the opportunity to be sentenced under the law as it exists today, not under an ancient legislation. If the Court sides with the government, it means tens of thousands of people will remain trapped by mandatory minimums that the government admits are unjust. If the Court rules for Rutherford and Carter, it will unlock the prison doors for a measured, individualized review of sentences widely considered to be relics of a tougher time. The future of compassionate release now hangs in the balance.