Whether 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)

The compassionate -release statute permits courts to reduce a prisoner’s sentence if the court finds that “extraordinary and compelling reasons” warrant relief. 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A) . Congress placed only two limits on what can count as an “extraordinary and compelling reason”: (1) it must be “consistent with” “applicable policy statements” from the U.S. Sentencing Commission, id.; and (2) “[r]ehabilitation of the defendant alone shal l not be considered an extraordinary and compelling reason,” 28 U.S.C. § 994(t) . Sections 401 and 403 of the First Step Act of 2018 reduced penalties for certain drug and firearm offenses going forward. Because of these changes, individuals sentenced today for these offenses often face mandatory minimum terms of imprisonment decades shorter than they would have received before the First Step Act. The question presented is: 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). This same question is also presented in Rutherford v. United States , No. 24 -820 (cert. granted June 6, 2025), and Carter v. United ii States , No. 24 -860 (cert. granted June 6, 2025). The Court has consolidated these two cases for argument. iii PAR TIES TO THE PROCEEDINGS Petitioner Eural Black was the defendant and movant in the district court and the appellant in the court of appeals. Respondent United States of America was the plaintiff and respondent in the district court and the appellee in the court of appeals. iv RELATED CASES Decisions Under Review United States v. Black , 131 F.4th 542 (7th Cir. 20 25) United States v. Black , 715 F. Supp. 3d 1069 (N.D. Ill. 2024) Prior, Re lated Decisions United States v. Haynes , 582 F.3d 686 (7th Cir. 2009) United States v. Black , 2011 WL 6058584 (N.D. Ill. Dec. 6, 20 11) United States v. Black , 999 F.3d 1071 (7th Cir. 2021) Black v. Youn g, 2019 WL 3783409 (S.D. W. Va. Feb. 28 , 2019) Black v. Youn g, 2018 WL 3797999 (S.D. W. Va. Aug. 12, 2019) Black v. United States , 2019 U.S. A pp. LEX IS 39299 (7th Cir. Aug. 27, 2019) United States v. Black , 2020 WL 1445606 (N.D. Il. Mar. 25, 2020) Black v. United States , 2020 WL 9311958 (7th Cir. Nov. 20, 2020 ) United States v. Black , N.D. Il. , No. 05 -70-4 (July 17, 2020) United States v. Black , N.D. Il. , No. 05 -70-4 (Nov. 22, 2021 ) United Sta tes v. Black , 7th Cir., No. 21-3217 (June 2, 2022 ) Black v. United States , 7th Cir., No. 22-2979 (Dec. 22, 2022) Black v. Heckard , 2025 WL 164 7040 (S.D. W. V a. May 19 , 2025) Black v. Heckard , 2025 WL 1648367 (S.D. W. V a. June 10, 2025)