Nov 1 (Reuters) – A federal appeals court on Friday ruled that the U.S. Sentencing Commission lacked authority to enact a policy last year that would allow judges to deem changes in law as “extraordinary and compelling” reasons justifying releasing prisoners early.
A three-judge panel of the Philadelphia-based 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals reached that conclusion as it rejected, opens new tab a Pennsylvania man’s bid to reduce the nearly 42-1/2 year prison sentence he received for committing two armed robberies in 2003.
The defendant, Daniel Rutherford, had argued that following the passage of the criminal justice reform law the First Step Act, he was eligible for compassionate release because if he were sentenced for his crimes today, his sentence would be at least 18 years shorter than what he received in 2006.
The decision was decried by U.S. Senator Dick Durbin of Illinois, the chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee, who with fellow Democratic Senator Cory Booker of New Jersey had filed a friend-of-the court brief, opens new tab arguing the Sentencing Commission validly exercised its authority.
Durbin, who had backed the First Step Act, in a statement said the ruling wrongly stripped trial judges of their ability to determine if a change in law justified compassionate release and undermined the Sentencing Commission’s authority.
“This question will ultimately be resolved by the Supreme Court, and I’m hopeful that the court will uphold the Sentencing Commission’s authority and respect the ability of judges to exercise their discretion on a case-by-case basis,” Durbin said.
The Sentencing Commission had no comment. A lawyer for Rutherford did not respond to a request for comment.