WASHINGTON, D.C. — Families Against Mandatory Minimums Foundation (FAMM) sharply criticized two recent U.S. Supreme Court decisions, calling the rulings in Fernandez v. United States and Carter/Rutherford v. United States “disappointing” and warning that they will limit opportunities for compassionate release for people serving lengthy federal prison sentences.
In a press release, Shanna Rifkin discussed the Supreme Court’s decisions in Fernandez v. United States and Carter/Rutherford v. United States. The foundation called these decisions “disappointing.”
Fernandez v. United States is a case involving an alleged double homicide in which Fernandez claims innocence. Fernandez filed a motion for compassionate release, arguing both that he is innocent and that there are compelling and extraordinary reasons for his release. The Supreme Court denied this motion.
Rutherford v. United States involves the alleged use of gun violence during a crime. Rutherford argues that his sentence is an “unusually long sentence” and connects this to his list of arguments for extraordinary and compelling reasons to obtain compassionate release. This motion was also denied by the Supreme Court.
The release focuses on Shanna Rifkin, the general counsel for FAMM, who “directs the Federal Compassionate Release Clearinghouse, oversees FAMM’s Supreme Court practice, and advocates for reform of federal sentencing and corrections law and policy before the United States Sentencing Commission, Congress, the Federal Bureau of Prisons, and the U.S. Department of Justice.”
Rifkin opens her statements by saying, “We are deeply concerned with how the flawed legal thinking reflected in these opinions will impact real people who are serving unjust sentences that would not be imposed today.”
Rifkin adds that the United States has “slammed the door shut” on people who are serving federal sentences that are “decades or lifetimes longer than are permitted by Congress today under the First Step Act.”
Additionally, Rifkin states, “The Court ruled that now-repudiated sentences cannot be corrected using the ‘compassionate release’ statute, condemning those sentenced before the First Step Act to serve out sentences so unconscionable that even Congress has abandoned them.”
These decisions, Rifkin says, have caused the core values that the compassionate release statute follows to be undermined. She also argues that Congress has been directly contradicted by the Supreme Court, even “while [the Supreme Court is] claiming to honor the First Step Act.”
Both opinions regarding Fernandez v. United States and Carter/Rutherford v. United States “look primarily to the Bureau of Prisons’ view of the contours of compassionate release, which undermines the First Step Act’s aim to limit the BOP’s role,” Rifkin reports.
Rifkin states that there are “extraordinary and compelling reasons justifying compassionate release,” but that the majority’s use of “casual hypotheticals — analogizing to business trips and dietician-prescribed meals” has been used to severely minimize the harm that these two decisions will cause to compassionate release programs.
“[The decisions] emphasize how out of touch the court is when it comes to the lives of people in prison and their family members,” Rifkin argues.
The release quotes Rifkin a final time, stating, “Despite this disappointing news, FAMM will continue to work in the courts, Congress, and federal agencies to achieve justice for people who are incarcerated under unjust sentencing laws and their families who serve their imprisonment with them.”
Follow the Vanguard on Social Media – X, Instagram and Facebook. Subscribe the Vanguard News letters. To make a tax-deductible donation, please visit davisvanguard.org/donate or give directly through ActBlue. Your support will ensure that the vital work of the Vanguard continues.
Categories:
Breaking News Everyday Injustice
Tags:
Compassionate Release Criminal Justice Reform FAMM Federal Sentencing Reform First Step Act Supreme Court
