Abstract
Federal courts are deeply divided on whether nonretroactive changes in decisional law affecting sentencing are an “extraordinary and compelling reason” for compassionate release under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A), The First, Second, Fourth, and Tenth Circuits recognize district courts’ broad discretion to weigh such changes, emphasizing that broad judicial discretion supports consideration of any relevant factors. In contrast, the Sixth, Seventh, Eights, and D.C. Circuits exclude nonretroactive changes in decisional law from consideration, confining “extraordinary and compelling reasons” to narrower circumstances. This circuit split has produced inconsistent outcomes, with similarly situated defendants subject to disparate treatment based solely on geography. The resulting lack of uniformity undermines both the equitable aims of compassionate release and the balance between fairness and finality in federal sentencing. Accordingly, the Sentencing Commission should issue a policy statement explicitly stating that nonretroactive changes in decisional law do not constitute “extraordinary and compelling reasons” for compassionate release. Such a policy would resolve the circuit split, preserve the purpose of compassionate release, and protect the finality of sentencing decisions.
Recommended Citation
Zumbar, Anna
(2026)
"Extraordinary or Excessive? Rethinking Nonretroactive Changes in Decisional Law as Grounds for Compassionate Release,"
Akron Law Review: Vol. 59:
Iss.
1, Article 6.
Available at:
https://ideaexchange.uakron.edu/akronlawreview/vol59/iss1/6