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

March 1, 2024 in PRINT EDITION

Preempting Private Prisons

Abstract: In 2019 and 2021, respectively, California and Washington enacted laws banning the operation of private prisons within each state, including those operated by private companies in contracts with the…
Read More
March 1, 2024 in PRINT EDITION

Speaking Back to Sexual Privacy Invasions

Abstract: Many big players in the internet ecosystem do not like hosting sexual expression. They often justify these bans as a protection of sexual privacy. For example, Meta states that…
Read More
March 1, 2024 in PRINT EDITION

From Precedent to Policy: The Effects of Dobbs on Detained Immigrant Youth

Abstract: In June 2022, the United States Supreme Court released the historic decision Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, holding that the U.S. Constitution does not protect an individual’s right to an…
Read More