SCOTUS Slams the Door on First Step Act Sentence Reductions—And Thousands of Federal Prisoners Just Lost Their Best Shot at Relief

The Court's 6-3 Ruling Guts Post-Conviction Relief Under the 2018 Reform Law

In a devastating blow to federal prisoners seeking sentence reductions, the Supreme Court ruled on May 28, 2026, that judges cannot reduce sentences under the First Step Act merely because defendants would receive shorter terms today under the 2018 law's reformed sentencing provisions. The 6-3 decision, which Reuters reported effectively narrowed earlier U.S. Sentencing Commission policy, forecloses what had become one of the most promising avenues for post-conviction relief in the federal system.

The ruling's impact cannot be overstated. Since the First Step Act's passage in 2018, federal defenders and inmates' advocates have invoked its provisions to argue that sentences imposed under now-rejected mandatory minimums—particularly for crack cocaine offenses—should be revisited in light of Congress's recognition that those penalties were unjustifiably harsh. The Act, after all, was expressly designed to remedy racially disparate sentencing that had devastated Black communities for decades. But the Court has now held that the Act's compassionate-release mechanism, codified at 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A), cannot be used as a backdoor vehicle to challenge the validity of the original conviction or sentence based solely on intervening legal changes.

What the Court Actually Held—And Why It Matters

The decision resolves a circuit split that had emerged over whether district courts could consider the First Step Act's changes to sentencing law when evaluating motions for compassionate release. Several circuits, including the Second and Ninth, had permitted judges to weigh the fact that a defendant would receive a materially shorter sentence today as an "extraordinary and compelling reason" justifying release under § 3582(c)(1)(A). The Sentencing Commission had embraced this view in its 2023 amendments to the policy statement, U.S.S.G. § 1B1.13, which expressly listed "unusually long sentences" and changes in law as factors courts could consider.

The Supreme Court has now rejected that approach. According to Reuters' reporting, the majority held that the First Step Act's compassionate-release provision was designed to address changed circumstances personal to the defendant—terminal illness, family emergencies, elderly age—not to serve as a vehicle for wholesale resentencing based on legislative amendments. The Court reasoned that Congress knew how to make sentencing reforms retroactive when it wanted to, citing the Fair Sentencing Act of 2010's express retroactivity provision, and that the First Step Act's silence on retroactivity for most provisions was deliberate.

The practical effect: if you were sentenced to 20 years under the pre-2018 crack mandatory minimums, and you would receive 8 years today, that disparity alone is no longer enough. Unless you have a qualifying medical condition, family circumstance, or other traditional compassionate-release ground, you're serving the full term.

The Sentencing Commission's Authority Takes a Hit

Beyond the immediate impact on pending motions, the decision represents a significant constraint on the U.S. Sentencing Commission's policymaking authority. The Commission had spent years studying the issue, holding public hearings, and ultimately concluding that courts should have discretion to consider changes in law when evaluating compassionate-release motions. That policy judgment—embodied in the 2023 amendments to § 1B1.13—has now been effectively invalidated.

This is part of a broader pattern. The Court has increasingly signaled skepticism toward administrative agencies' interpretations of their own authority, and the Sentencing Commission is no exception. For practitioners, the takeaway is clear: the Commission's policy statements are vulnerable to judicial override, particularly when they expand relief beyond what the statutory text explicitly authorizes. Expect renewed challenges to other Commission initiatives, including its recent amendments on acquitted conduct and its efforts to address disparities in career-offender designations.

What Happens to Pending Cases?

The immediate question for criminal defense attorneys is what happens to the thousands of compassionate-release motions currently pending in district courts that rely, at least in part, on First Step Act sentencing disparities. The answer is bleak. Motions that rest solely on the argument that the defendant would receive a shorter sentence today are now dead on arrival. Counsel should immediately review pending filings and, where possible, amend to emphasize other qualifying circumstances—medical conditions, family hardship, rehabilitation, or victim-of-abuse claims under § 1B1.13(b)(5).

But here's the harder truth: for many federal prisoners, First Step Act disparities were the only viable ground for relief. They are not terminally ill. They do not have qualifying family emergencies. They were simply sentenced under a regime that Congress has since repudiated as unjust. The Court's ruling means those inmates will serve sentences that everyone—including the sentencing judges—now recognize as excessive. That is not a bug of the decision; it is the intended consequence.

The Dissent's Warning—and the Road Ahead

Reuters reported the decision was 6-3, and while the search results do not identify the dissenters by name, the ideological split is predictable. The dissent likely argued that the majority's cramped reading of § 3582(c)(1)(A) ignores the First Step Act's remedial purpose and effectively nullifies Congress's judgment that certain sentences were unjustifiably harsh. The dissent almost certainly warned that the ruling will perpetuate racial disparities, given that Black defendants were disproportionately subjected to the crack mandatory minimums the Act sought to remedy.

What happens next? Legislative action is the only realistic fix, but don't hold your breath. Congress showed little appetite for criminal justice reform even in 2018, when the First Step Act passed with bipartisan support. In the current political climate, a bill to restore judicial discretion over compassionate release is a non-starter. State-level reform is irrelevant here; this is a federal statutory interpretation issue.

For now, federal defenders must pivot. The focus should shift to clemency petitions, which remain within the executive branch's unreviewable discretion. The Biden administration's clemency initiative, which prioritized nonviolent drug offenders sentenced under the old crack laws, offers a template. But clemency is a lottery, not a legal remedy, and it depends entirely on who occupies the White House.

The Broader Implications for Post-Conviction Practice

This decision is part of a larger trend: the federal courts' steady contraction of post-conviction remedies. We've seen it in the habeas context, where Shinn v. Ramirez, 596 U.S. 366 (2022), effectively barred federal courts from considering evidence of ineffective assistance of post-conviction counsel. We've seen it in the Bivens context, where the Court has refused to extend damages remedies to new contexts for decades. And now we're seeing it in the sentencing context, where the Court has interpreted the First Step Act's most promising provision in the narrowest possible way.

The message to criminal defense practitioners is unmistakable: the federal courts are not a reliable forum for systemic reform. If you want to change sentencing policy, you need to win elections, not motions. That's a bitter pill for those of us who believe that courts have a role to play in correcting injustice, but it's the reality we now inhabit.

For the thousands of federal prisoners who had pinned their hopes on First Step Act relief, the Supreme Court's message is equally clear: you're on your own.