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

June 1, 2023 in PRINT EDITION

In the Room Where It Happens: How Federal Appropriations Law Can Enforce Tribal Consultation Policies and Protect Native Subsistence Rights in Alaska

Abstract: Federal-tribal consultation is one of the only mechanisms available to American Indian and Alaska Native communities to provide input on federal management decisions impacting their subsistence lands and resources.…
Read More
June 1, 2023 in PRINT EDITION

Creating and Maintaining Consistent Standards Regarding the Role of Parental Substance Abuse at Shelter Care Hearings in Washington State

Abstract: When Child Protective Services (CPS) removes children from their home in Washington State, the State must hold a shelter care hearing within seventy-two hours to determine where the children…
Read More
June 1, 2023 in PRINT EDITION

Per Curiam Signals in the Supreme Court’s Shadow Docket

Abstract: Lower courts and litigants depend a great deal on the Supreme Court to articulate and communicate signals regarding how to interpret existing doctrine. Signals are at their strongest and…
Read More