Supreme Court Rules Prisoner Innocence Claim Not Grounds for Compassionate Release

The Supreme Court ruled Thursday that a prisoner's assertion of innocence does not constitute an extraordinary and compelling reason for compassionate release under federal law. The 8-1 decision in Fernandez v. United States rejected a motion filed by a convicted prisoner who argued that his claimed innocence warranted a reduced sentence.

The majority opinion stated that the supposed invalidity of a conviction is not among the extraordinary and compelling reasons that justify compassionate release.

Compassionate release allows courts to reduce sentences when extraordinary and compelling reasons, such as age or medical condition, are present. The prisoner in this case sought relief primarily on the ground that he was innocent. The majority opinion was joined by the court's conservative justices. A separate concurring opinion was filed by one justice and joined by another.

The dissenting justice argued that the text and history of the compassionate-release provision do not support limiting district courts' discretion in the manner adopted by the majority. The dissent characterized the majority's approach as an atextual limitation on sentencing discretion.

The majority opinion responded in footnotes that the dissent's criticism relied on a source that does not address the issue in the case. It stated that the distinction between challenging a conviction's validity and seeking relief based on present circumstances is workable and routinely applied by courts.

The majority also addressed the dissent's treatment of prior precedents, stating that the dissent appeared to misunderstand how those decisions applied the relevant statutes.