ALERT UPDATE 2020 – WEEKLY REPORT U.S. Supreme Court and Circuit Court Wins
Edition: Week of June 2-6, 2025
SUPREME COURT WATCH
The Justices held their June 5, 2025 conference this week. We expect Orders on Monday, June 9, 2025.
On June 2, 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a new order list, marking the start of what could be an eventful month. While the list itself may
not appear particularly dramatic, it contains a noteworthy mix of one grant, one high-profile denial, and one long-running case that remains unresolved.
Among the four new cases in which the Court granted certiorari, the most significant for criminal law is Case v. Montana, (No. 24-624). The issue presented in that case is: “Whether law
enforcement may enter a home without a warrant based on less than probable cause of an ongoing emergency, or whether the emergency-aid exception to the warrant requirement demands probable
cause.” This case raises an important Fourth Amendment question likely to have broad implications. Another case of interest on the docket is The GEO Group, Inc. v. Menocal, (No. 24-758),
which, although not a criminal case per se, involves tort liability claims against a private prison. The legal question there is whether a government contractor’s claim of derivative
sovereign immunity can be immediately appealed—a potentially significant ruling for private entities operating in the corrections system.
Maryland’s ban on AR-15-style rifles under the Second Amendment. Justices Thomas, Alito, and Gorsuch expressed their desire to hear the case, but a fourth vote for certiorari did not
materialize. Justice Kavanaugh issued a brief separate statement that shed little light on his rationale for withholding the critical fourth vote, leaving many observers puzzled.
Finally, the Court once again declined to take action on Hamm v. Smith, (No. 24-872), a high-profile Eighth Amendment case involving Alabama’s execution procedures for intellectually
disabled individuals. This case, which has been relisted more than 20 times in recent years, was previously remanded to the Eleventh Circuit and has now returned on Alabama’s renewed appeal.
In a notable development, the U.S. Department of Justice filed an unsolicited amicus brief at the cert stage, urging the Court to clarify whether states may require a threshold IQ score
before evaluating adaptive functioning deficits. The DOJ also asked the Court to resolve how multiple IQ test scores should be assessed collectively—an area that remains surprisingly
unsettled more than 20 years after Atkins v. Virginia. Additionally, 19 states have filed an amicus brief in support of Alabama’s position. Given the mounting interest and the involvement
of the federal government, a grant of certiorari appears increasingly likely, setting the stage for what may become the next chapter in post-Atkins jurisprudence.
United States v. Wilkinson, IV, (No. 23-1863)(7th Cir. June 2, 2025)– Congress gave federal prosecutors the ability to seek enhanced sentences based on a defendant’s prior convictions. This grant came with conditions. Before a trial or before a defendant enters a guilty plea, prosecutors must state which previous convictions they seek to rely on for any sought enhancements. The procedures set out in 21 U.S.C. § 851(a)(1) were not followed in Thomas Wilkinson’s case. The government gave Wilkinson notice of a prior conviction in a § 851 notice. But after Wilkinson pleaded guilty, the government realized that this conviction could not enhance his sentence. So, it asked the district court to enhance Wilkinson’s sentence based on a different prior conviction—one not mentioned in the § 851 notice. The court did so, subjecting Wilkinson to a higher statutory minimum prison term. Because this decision was a harmful error, the Court vacated and remanded for resentencing.
OTHER NEWSLast week, the Supreme Court agreed to hear the Fernandez case involving the “compassionate release” provision of the First Step Act of 2018, which allows federal inmates to seek sentence reductions based on “extraordinary and compelling reasons.” Now, the Court has relisted two more cases—Carter and Rutherford—that raise related issues about whether courts may consider nonretroactive sentencing changes under this standard.
Johnnie Markel Carter is serving a 70-year sentence for armed bank robberies and firearm offenses, 57 years of which stem from now-disfavored consecutive sentences under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c). The First Step Act amended § 924(c) to limit such stacking but applied the reform only prospectively. In 2023, the U.S. Sentencing Commission added § 1B1.13(b)(6) to the Guidelines, authorizing courts to consider nonretroactive sentencing changes as grounds for compassionate release. However, the Third Circuit, in United States v. Andrews, held that such changes cannot qualify as “extraordinary and compelling” and that the Commission exceeded its authority.
Carter’s sentencing judge acknowledged the unfairness of his sentence but felt bound by Andrews. Similarly, Daniel Rutherford, serving 42.5 years
for two armed robberies, was denied relief based on the same precedent. Both men now petition the Supreme Court, arguing that the Commission acted within its authority and pointing to a
growing circuit split: the 1st, 4th, 9th, and 10th Circuits allow courts to consider nonretroactive changes; the 3rd, 5th, 6th, 7th, 8th, and D.C. Circuits do not, a clear circuit split.
Adding to the intrigue, the Department of Justice itself argues that the Sentencing Commission overstepped but agrees that the circuit split warrants Supreme Court review. DOJ favors Carter
as the better vehicle for resolving the issue, citing procedural complications in Rutherford. Rutherford counters that his case is cleaner. On Friday, the Supreme Court granted cert and
consolidated the cases of Rutherford v. United States and Carter v. United States, the Justices will decide the related but distinct question of whether federal courts can consider “changes
in the law” that do not apply retroactively as “extraordinary and compelling reasons” warranting a sentence reduction under § 3582(c)(1)(A).
Recent Executive Orders and circuit rulings have reopened the door for:
- § 922(g) firearm convictions (non-violent, non-drug priors); and
- Compassionate release motions based on non-retroactive § 403(a) stacking reforms.
Recent wins in the 3rd, 6th, 8th, 9th, and 10th Circuits show courts are rethinking prior convictions and excessive sentencing on § 922(g) convictions.
Please Provide:
- Contact’s name + telephone number
- Court of conviction
- Case number
We’ll notify your contact if relief may be available. Call: (832) 346-0220.
30 Years. Thousands Helped. Real Results.
We offer professional, affordable evaluations for:
- Direct appeals
- § 2255 / § 2241 motions
- First Step Act + Compassionate Release
- Earned time credit disputes
- Clemency + pardon requests
- Specialized State and Federal post-conviction motions
- Case number