Today, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Rutherford v. United States. The case concerns the First Step Act of 2018, overwhelmingly bipartisan legislation that has been hailed as the most significant criminal justice reform bill in a generation.

Under the Act, a district court can reduce a federal convict’s sentence if it determines that “extraordinary and compelling reasons warrant such a reduction.” Now, the Court is considering whether district courts can treat sentencing disparities created by the Act as “extraordinary and compelling reasons” for sentence reductions.

The Cato Institute, Right on Crime, and the Rutherford Institute filed a brief arguing that the plain text of the statute, its purpose, and the long-standing recognition of judicial discretion in sentencing all support allowing consideration of such disparities. A court can consider the fact that a defendant sentenced before the Act passed would have received a significantly lower sentence today.

Matthew Cavedon, Director of the Project on Criminal Justice at Cato, is available to discuss this case and broader implications for overcriminalization and constitutional rights. Please reach out to Cato PR at pr@​cato.​org.