Election law changes? Our legislation tracker’s got you. Check it out!

Rutherford v. United States: Difference between revisions

From Ballotpedia
Jump to: navigation, search
No edit summary
 
Line 18: Line 18:


{{TLDRbox
{{TLDRbox
<!--| '''[[#Background|The issue]]:''' The case {{Greener| start=6/30/2026| before=concerns| after=concerned}} Xenter brief explanation of law related to the case.X [[#Background|Click here]] to learn more about the case's background.-->
| '''[[#Background|The issue]]:''' The case {{Greener| start=6/30/2026| before=concerns| after=concerned}} the [https://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/10/PLAW-115publ391_FirstStepAct2018.pdf First Step Act] and [https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/3582 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i)]. [[#Background|Click here]] to learn more about the case's background.
| '''[[#Questions presented|The questions presented]]:''' "Whether, as four circuits permit but six others prohibit, a district court may consider disparities created by the First Step Act's prospective changes in sentencing law when deciding if "extraordinary and compelling reasons" warrant a sentence reduction under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i)."<ref name=qp>[https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/qp/24-00820qp.pdf ''Supreme Court of the United States,'' "24-820 RUTHERFORD V. UNITED STATES QP", June 6, 2025]</ref>
| '''[[#Questions presented|The questions presented]]:''' "Whether, as four circuits permit but six others prohibit, a district court may consider disparities created by the First Step Act's prospective changes in sentencing law when deciding if "extraordinary and compelling reasons" warrant a sentence reduction under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i)."<ref name=qp>[https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/qp/24-00820qp.pdf ''Supreme Court of the United States,'' "24-820 RUTHERFORD V. UNITED STATES QP", June 6, 2025]</ref>
| '''[[#Outcome|The outcome]]:''' The appeal is pending adjudication before the U.S. Supreme Court.
| '''[[#Outcome|The outcome]]:''' The appeal is pending adjudication before the U.S. Supreme Court.
Line 28: Line 28:


==Background==
==Background==
<!--
===Case summary===
===Case summary===
The following are the parties to this case:<ref>[https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/24-820.html ''Supreme Court of the United States'', "No. 24-820 Rutherford v. United States" accessed June 16, 2025]</ref>
The following are the parties to this case:<ref>[https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/24-820.html ''Supreme Court of the United States'', "No. 24-820 Rutherford v. United States" accessed June 16, 2025]</ref>
*'''Petitioner''':  
*'''Petitioner''': Daniel Rutherford
**''Legal counsel'':  
**''Legal counsel'': Justin Boigon Berg
*'''Respondent''':  
*'''Respondent''': United States
**''Legal counsel'':  
**''Legal counsel'': D. John Sauer
The following summary of the case was published by XREFX
The following summary of the case was published by [https://www.oyez.org/about ''Oyez''], a free law project from Cornell’s Legal Information Institute, Justia, and the Chicago-Kent College of Law:<ref name=Oyez>[https://www.oyez.org/cases/2025/24-820 ''Oyez'', "Rutherford v. United States," accessed November 14, 2025]</ref>
{{quote|
{{quote|In 2003, twenty-two-year-old Daniel Rutherford committed two armed robberies at a Pennsylvania chiropractic office within a five-day period. During the first robbery, he brandished a gun at the chiropractor and stole $390 and a watch. Four days later, he returned to the same office with an accomplice, again pulled a gun, and stole $900 in cash and jewelry.
<br>
A jury convicted Rutherford of one count of conspiracy to commit Hobbs Act robbery, two counts of Hobbs Act robbery, and two counts of using a firearm during a crime of violence under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c). The district court sentenced Rutherford to 125 months for the robbery-related charges plus mandatory consecutive sentences of 7 years for the first § 924(c) offense and 25 years for the second, totaling nearly 42.5 years in prison. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit affirmed his conviction in 2007, and he did not appeal his sentence. In 2021, Rutherford filed a motion for compassionate release, arguing that changes in federal sentencing law would result in a significantly shorter sentence if he were sentenced today. The district court denied his motion in 2023, and the Third Circuit affirmed the lower court’s denial.
}}
}}
To learn more about this case, see the following:
To learn more about this case, see the following:
*[https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/24-820.html Supreme Court of the United States]
*[https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/24-820.html Supreme Court of the United States]
*[ ''Oyez'']
*[https://www.oyez.org/cases/2025/24-820 ''Oyez'']
*[https://www.scotusblog.com/cases/case-files/rutherford-v-united-states/ ''SCOTUSblog'']
*[https://www.scotusblog.com/cases/case-files/rutherford-v-united-states/ ''SCOTUSblog'']
-->
 
===Timeline===
===Timeline===
The following timeline details key events in this case:
The following timeline details key events in this case:

Latest revision as of 16:18, 14 November 2025


Supreme Court of the United States
Rutherford v. United States
Docket number: 24-820
Term: 2025
Court: United States Supreme Court
Important dates
Argued: November 12, 2025
Court membership
Chief Justice John Roberts • Clarence Thomas • Samuel Alito • Sonia Sotomayor • Elena Kagan • Neil Gorsuch • Brett Kavanaugh • Amy Coney Barrett • Ketanji Brown Jackson

Rutherford v. United States is a case argued before the Supreme Court of the United States on November 12, 2025, during the court's October 2025-2026 term.

HIGHLIGHTS
  • The issue: The case concerns the First Step Act and 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i). Click here to learn more about the case's background.
  • The questions presented: "Whether, as four circuits permit but six others prohibit, a district court may consider disparities created by the First Step Act's prospective changes in sentencing law when deciding if "extraordinary and compelling reasons" warrant a sentence reduction under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i)."[1]
  • The outcome: The appeal is pending adjudication before the U.S. Supreme Court.


    • The case came on a writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. To review the lower court's opinion, click here.

    Background

    Case summary

    The following are the parties to this case:[2]

    • Petitioner: Daniel Rutherford
      • Legal counsel: Justin Boigon Berg
    • Respondent: United States
      • Legal counsel: D. John Sauer

    The following summary of the case was published by Oyez, a free law project from Cornell’s Legal Information Institute, Justia, and the Chicago-Kent College of Law:[3]

    “ In 2003, twenty-two-year-old Daniel Rutherford committed two armed robberies at a Pennsylvania chiropractic office within a five-day period. During the first robbery, he brandished a gun at the chiropractor and stole $390 and a watch. Four days later, he returned to the same office with an accomplice, again pulled a gun, and stole $900 in cash and jewelry.


    A jury convicted Rutherford of one count of conspiracy to commit Hobbs Act robbery, two counts of Hobbs Act robbery, and two counts of using a firearm during a crime of violence under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c). The district court sentenced Rutherford to 125 months for the robbery-related charges plus mandatory consecutive sentences of 7 years for the first § 924(c) offense and 25 years for the second, totaling nearly 42.5 years in prison. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit affirmed his conviction in 2007, and he did not appeal his sentence. In 2021, Rutherford filed a motion for compassionate release, arguing that changes in federal sentencing law would result in a significantly shorter sentence if he were sentenced today. The district court denied his motion in 2023, and the Third Circuit affirmed the lower court’s denial. [4]

    		”

    To learn more about this case, see the following:

    Timeline

    The following timeline details key events in this case:

    Questions presented

    The petitioner presented the following questions to the court:[1]

    Questions presented:
    “ Whether, as four circuits permit but six others prohibit, a district court may consider disparities created by the First Step Act's prospective changes in sentencing law when deciding if "extraordinary and compelling reasons" warrant a sentence reduction under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i).[4] ”

    Oral argument

    Audio

    Audio of oral argument:[5]



    Transcript

    Transcript of oral argument:[6]

    Outcome

    The case is pending adjudication before the U.S. Supreme Court.

    October term 2025-2026

    See also: Supreme Court cases, October term 2025-2026

    The Supreme Court began hearing cases for the term on October 6, 2025. The court's yearly term begins on the first Monday in October and lasts until the first Monday in October the following year. The court generally releases the majority of its decisions by mid-June.[7]


    See also

    External links

    Footnotes

    1. ↑ 1.0 1.1 Supreme Court of the United States, "24-820 RUTHERFORD V. UNITED STATES QP", June 6, 2025
    2. ↑ Supreme Court of the United States, "No. 24-820 Rutherford v. United States" accessed June 16, 2025
    3. ↑ Oyez, "Rutherford v. United States," accessed November 14, 2025
    4. ↑ 4.0 4.1 Note: This text is quoted verbatim from the original source. Any inconsistencies are attributable to the original source.
    5. ↑ Supreme Court of the United States, "Oral Argument - Audio," argued November 12, 2025
    6. ↑ Supreme Court of the United States, "Oral Argument - Transcript," argued November 12, 2025
    7. ↑ SupremeCourt.gov, "The Supreme Court at Work: The Term and Caseload," accessed January 24, 2022
    Retrieved from "https://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php?title=Rutherford_v._United_States&oldid=10684478"