By Christiana Teodoro, PBI Intern
In Fernandez v. United States, No. 24-556, the United States Supreme Court will resolve a circuit split as to whether there are limitations on what factors a federal judge may consider when granting a sentence reduction for “extraordinary and compelling reasons” under the statute governing compassionate release, 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A).
In this case, Joe Fernandez was convicted for involvement in a murder-for-hire crime. Fernandez was sentenced to a mandatory life sentence on a murder conspiracy charge and to a consecutive life sentence on a firearm charge. Later, the same trial judge expressed “disquiet” about the verdict’s fairness, the strength of the evidence, and considerable sentencing disparities between co-defendants, and granted Fernandez’s motion for compassionate release.
The Second Circuit held that the trial court abused its direction in considering evidence about Fernandez’s potential innocence and the disparity between Fernandez’s and his co-defendants’ sentences. The Second Circuit found that challenges to the validity of a conviction must be made under the standard post-conviction vehicle of habeas corpus or collateral review: a motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, rather than a motion for compassionate release.
At the Supreme Court, Fernandez contends that there is no conflict between Section 3582(c)(1)(A) compassionate relief motions, which focus on “equitable considerations” that warrant reducing the sentence, and Section 2255 motions, which argue that the conviction should be vacated a “legal defect.”
At oral argument held on November 12, 2025, the Justices focused on whether the “extraordinary and compelling reasons” for compassionate release may include legal errors or unfairness, rather than being limited to “personal circumstances” like illness or age.
Several justices asked about the First Step Act’s expansion of Section 3582(c)(1)(A) in 2018, which permitted incarcerated individuals to file their own compassionate release motions, in addition to permitting the Bureau of Prisons to file such motions on their behalf. The Justices asked whether this change in who can file a motion affected the breadth of the “extraordinary and compelling circumstances” that the court may consider when granting the motion.
The Justices also focused on whether Fernandez’s interpretation would encourage the re-litigation of final sentences through motions for compassionate release, blurring the line between that mechanism and habeas review, and on Congress’s intent in granting discretion to judges to decide what qualifies as an “extraordinary and compelling” reason for relief. Many Justices appeared skeptical of Fernandez’s position and expressed concern about preserving the limits of post-conviction review.
The Supreme Court’s decision is expected by June 2026.
Why This Case Matters for Pro Bono
Notably, Fernandez is currently being represented pro bono by attorney Benjamin Gruenstein, a partner at Cravath, Swaine & Moore*, a member of the Criminal Justice Act panel authorized to represent indigent defendants in the Second Circuit and Southern District of New York.
If the Supreme Court agrees with Fernandez, this case could expand the scope for compassionate release, which has long been a narrow, rarely used mechanism. A broader interpretation that allows consideration of unfairness in the verdict or sentencing would allow incarcerated individuals to raise arguments that previously would have been foreclosed, and they would benefit from pro bono legal assistance.
However, even if the Supreme Court upholds the Second Circuit’s decision, this case presents an opportunity to shine a spotlight on the role that pro bono counsel can have in compassionate release motions more generally.
During the COVID-19 pandemic, Pro Bono Institute highlighted the increased need for pro bono counsel to assist with compassionate release motions, to assist incarcerated individuals who were at high risk of serious illness. Although the pandemic ended, the Compassionate Release Clearinghouse continues to connect pro bono counsel with federal prisoners interested in pursuing compassionate release.
The Clearinghouse’s active initiatives include filing compassionate release motions for vulnerable incarcerated individuals, and for incarcerated individuals whose sentences are excessive, either due to intervening changes in the law or because their original sentence was unjust.
Regardless of whether Fernandez expands the legal pathways available to incarcerated people seeking relief from their prison sentences, there is a need for legal representation and an opportunity for pro bono advocates to make a measurable difference in compassionate release cases.
*indicates a Law Firm Pro Bono Challenge® signatory