Skip to main content
PRINT EDITION

Expanding Judicial Discretion to Grant Compassionate Release During COVID-19

By December 1, 2022January 17th, 2023No Comments

Abstract: In the 1980s, Congress introduced compassionate release to counteract the increased rigidity of our federal sentencing system. This mechanism allowed courts, through a motion filed by the Bureau of Prison’s director, to reduce a prisoner’s sentence if “extraordinary and compelling” circumstances warrant such a reduction. However, because the Bureau of Prisons (BOP) seldom brought these motions, few people were released early via compassionate release. At the same time, public discourse and concerns regarding mass incarceration have continued to grow, causing lawmakers to revisit and revise compassionate release through the First Step Act of 2018 to ensure that this mechanism’s potential is fully realized.

From the First Step Act’s passage in 2018 until 2020, however, compassionate release was still more modestly utilized than legislators envisioned. This changed when the COVID-19 pandemic swept the United States and its prisons. The pandemic has presented courts with new opportunities to expand the use of compassionate release. While some legal scholars have examined the pandemic’s impact on courts’ compassionate release decisions, this Comment is the first to address a split among district court judges on how to interpret the relevant compassionate release statute’s exhaustion requirement. Some courts have interpreted the statute to allow prisoners to file a motion for compassionate release thirty days after a warden’s receipt of the request, regardless of whether the warden acted upon the request within that timeframe. In contrast, other courts have held that, if the warden denied the request within thirty days of receipt, the defendant must first exhaust administrative remedies within the BOP before filing a motion with the court. This Comment argues that courts should allow prisoners to directly file a motion with the court even if the warden timely denied the request. Not only is this interpretation more faithful to the statutory text, but it also allows courts to reach the merits of the case and thus grant more motions for compassionate release, which aligns with the First Step Act’s purpose of alleviating our current mass incarceration crisis.

Download the Full Article

Other Articles from WLR Print Edition

December 1, 2024 in PRINT EDITION

How Detrimental is Transunion v. Ramirez, Really? Understanding the Impact on Environmental Law

Abstract: In 2021, the United States Supreme Court issued a controversial opinion with the potential to constrict the standing doctrine. TransUnion v. Ramirez appeared to alter standing’s “concrete harm” requirement, which would…
Read More
December 1, 2024 in PRINT EDITION

Abdication of Power: Arizona v. Navajo Nation and Judicial Refusal to Enforce the Federal Trust Relationship

Abstract: Over 150 years ago, the federal government signed a treaty promising the Navajo people a permanent home within the bounds of their ancestral homeland. To this day, that promise…
Read More
December 1, 2024 in PRINT EDITION

Adverse Elements: How Requiring an Adverse Employment Action Element in ADA Failure-to-Accommodate Claims Hinders Disability Rights

Abstract: Individuals with disabilities are continuously marginalized by a world tailored to the able-bodied. One of the most visible areas where this marginalization manifests is employment. The Americans with Disabilities…
Read More