The End of the “Change in Law” Era: SCOTUS’s First Step Act Ruling Forces a Return to Traditional Compassionate Release Advocacy

The Supreme Court’s 6-3 decision on May 28, 2026, limiting compassionate-release reductions under the First Step Act represents more than a statutory interpretation setback for federal inmates—it is a jurisprudential reset that will force defense counsel to fundamentally rethink how they frame extraordinary and compelling reasons for sentence reductions. By holding that judges may not grant early release solely because a defendant would receive a shorter sentence under current law, the Court has effectively closed the door on what had become the most successful avenue for post-conviction relief in the federal system.

The Ruling and Its Immediate Impact

In rejecting the “change in law” theory, the Court has invalidated the primary mechanism by which thousands of federal prisoners have secured release since the First Step Act’s passage in 2018. The ruling splits sharply along ideological lines, with the majority emphasizing textual limits on judicial discretion while the dissent warns of creating a permanent underclass of inmates serving sentences that Congress has since deemed excessive.

For practitioners, this means the era of filing compassionate-release motions based primarily on the First Step Act’s retroactive changes to mandatory minimums—particularly the elimination of the “stacking” provisions under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) and the reduction of the “three strikes” mandatory life sentence to 25 years—is effectively over. District courts can no longer treat these legislative reforms as standalone extraordinary and compelling reasons justifying release.

Strategic Implications for Defense Counsel

The decision demands a return to the traditional, more difficult terrain of compassionate release: demonstrating individualized circumstances of extraordinary and compelling reasons. Under the applicable statute, 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A), counsel must now build records focused on the defendant’s health, age, family circumstances, or rehabilitation—factors that existed before the First Step Act’s passage but had been overshadowed by the more straightforward “change in law” arguments.

This shift will likely create a two-tiered system of justice. Defendants with access to sophisticated counsel who can compile comprehensive medical records, expert testimony on terminal illnesses, or documentation of family tragedies will continue to secure release. Those relying on court-appointed counsel with heavy caseloads may find the door to early release effectively closed, regardless of how dramatically sentencing law has evolved since their conviction.

The Rehabilitation Factor Gains New Currency

With “change in law” off the table, expect increased litigation over what constitutes “extraordinary and compelling” rehabilitation. The Sentencing Commission’s policy statement, USSG § 1B1.13(b)(5), recognizes unusually long sentences combined with changes in law as potential factors, but the Court’s ruling suggests that rehabilitation must now be truly exceptional—something beyond the ordinary maturation and programming participation that federal prisons are designed to produce.

Defense attorneys should begin documenting client rehabilitation efforts immediately upon sentencing, not merely when a motion becomes viable. This includes educational achievements, vocational training, mentorship roles, and disciplinary records. The Court’s skepticism toward broad judicial discretion in this area suggests that district courts will demand concrete, verifiable evidence of transformation rather than general assertions of good behavior.

The Broader Context: Retrenchment in Criminal Justice Reform

This decision arrives alongside other restrictive rulings from the Court, including the June 22, 2026, restoration of Pedro Hernandez’s conviction in the Etan Patz case. In that matter, the Court held that the Second Circuit exceeded limits imposed by the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (AEDPA), signaling a broader skepticism toward judicial intervention in final judgments—whether through habeas corpus or sentence modification.

Together, these rulings suggest a Court increasingly committed to finality over equity in the criminal context. For defense counsel, the message is clear: the window for leniency through judicial discretion is narrowing. Future relief will require either new legislation from Congress or a fundamental shift in the Court’s composition.

Practical Takeaways

In the immediate term, practitioners should:

1. Audit pending compassionate-release motions to identify alternative grounds beyond changes in law, particularly medical deterioration or family circumstances that may have developed since filing.

2. Begin building rehabilitation records early in the representation, even at sentencing, to create a foundation for future motions.

3. Consider clemency petitions as an alternative avenue, given the Court’s apparent hostility to judicial sentence modification.

The May 28 ruling is not merely a statutory interpretation case—it is a structural limitation on the judiciary’s ability to correct sentencing disparities created by Congress’s own evolving standards. For the federal defense bar, the challenge now is to adapt to a landscape where extraordinary and compelling reasons must be found in the human condition, not in the statute books.