At the time of Rutherford’s conviction, multiple firearm offenses required stacking of convictions: a first offense carried a mandatory minimum and each additional count in the same prosecution led to a consecutive 25-year minimum sentence. That produced a very long sentence for Rutherford (and Carter, in a consolidated case).
After his conviction, Congress passed the First Step Act, which made the “clarification” that multiple firearm offenses would lead to a 25-year penalty only if the defendant had been previously convicted of a firearm offense (not for multiple counts in the same case). If Rutherford had been convicted of the same crimes after the passage of the First Step Act, his sentence would have been at least 18 years shorter.
The trouble for Rutherford is that Congress made that sentencing change prospective, so he cannot directly avail himself of the revision. Instead, he argues under the Sentencing and Reform Act of 1984 that his circumstance warrants compassionate release—a reduction in sentence due to “extraordinary and compelling reasons” in light of the First Step Act. The district court denied the motion, and appellate court (Third Circuit) affirmed the district court. Rutherford now appeals.
To summarize the case is to see how it is a long shot for Rutherford. Congress could have made the First Step Act retroactive, but they did not (even as they do in other areas). It would be odd to say that Congress failing to make the law retroactive was an “extraordinary and compelling” reason to reduce the sentence under and earlier statute. It would functionally allow an earlier Congress speaking in generalities to override a more recent Congress speaking in specificities. During argument, most justices seemed skeptical of Rutherford’s position.
The justice bot confidently predicts the Court will affirm the Third Circuit, denying Rutherford early release. The most likely dissents are Jackson and Sotomayor.
Vote predictions
