SCOTUS rules against prisoner in compassionate release case

WASHINGTON (Gray DC) - The Supreme Court ruled against a prisoner granted compassionate release, saying the statute used to vacate his sentence does not apply.

The case of Fernandez v. United States weighed two legal terms: ‘compassionate release’ that relies on extraordinary and compelling reasons to release a prisoner, and ‘habeas corpus’, which allows prisoners to challenge the validity of their sentence.

In the case of a New York man serving a life sentence, justices ruled he should have appealed using that second path.

Joe Fernandez was initially granted compassionate release after a judge had misgivings about his sentence.

During arguments, Supreme Court justices seemed uneasy allowing judges to consider factors that also fall under the habeas statute. Justices ruled that Fernandez should have used that type of appeal to reduce his sentence.

In an 8-1 decision, justices ruled in favor of the U.S. government, with Justice Amy Coney Barrett drafting the majority opinion.

“The supposed invalidity of a conviction is not among the ‘extraordinary and compelling reasons’ that justify compassionate release,” Barrett wrote, throwing out Fernandez’s appeal.

Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson was the sole dissent on the nine-justice court, sharing concerns the ruling limits the flexibility of compassionate release, especially since the statute is designed to give petitioners relief.

She wanted to return Fernandez’s case for another review.

“By its terms, the compassionate-release statute is flexible, permitting sentence reductions for ‘extraordinary and compelling reasons,’” Jackson wrote. “The breadth of this language is no accident: It reflects Congress’s intent to preserve some of the traditional discretion afforded to district courts to ensure just treatment of defendants in criminal cases.”

With this ruling, if Fernandez maintains the invalidity of his conviction, he will have to proceed through a different statute to reduce his sentence.