Expanded Compassionate Release: What the New First Step Act Rules Actually Say

The Bureau of Prisons No Longer Holds the Keys: Direct Judicial Access Under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)

In my 25 years as a federal prosecutor, I witnessed firsthand how the Bureau of Prisons used its monopoly over compassionate release requests to deny relief to inmates who clearly deserved it. Before the First Step Act of 2018, the statutory framework required an inmate to petition the BOP director, who then had 30 days to respond—but the BOP routinely sat on these requests for months or simply denied them without meaningful review. The data was damning: between 2013 and 2017, the BOP approved fewer than 2% of compassionate release applications, even for terminally ill prisoners with documented medical evidence. The First Step Act fundamentally changed this dynamic by amending 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A) to allow inmates to file motions directly with the sentencing court after exhausting administrative remedies or waiting 30 days from the warden's receipt of the request. This procedural shift was not a minor tweak; it was a tectonic shift in power from the executive branch to the judiciary. I have argued cases where the BOP opposed release for a client with stage IV pancreatic cancer, and the court granted relief anyway because the statute now vests final authority in the judge, not the prison administrator. The exhaustion requirement remains a trap for the unwary, however, because courts strictly enforce the 30-day waiting period and will dismiss premature motions without prejudice. Defense counsel must document the exact date the warden received the request, typically via certified mail or institutional tracking systems, and file the motion no earlier than 31 days later. I have seen skilled attorneys lose viable cases because they filed one day too early, forcing them to restart the entire process with a new administrative request.

Extraordinary and Compelling Reasons Redefined: What the 2024 Guidelines Actually Mean for Your Client

The United States Sentencing Commission's November 2024 amendments to U.S.S.G. § 1B1.13 represent the most significant expansion of compassionate release eligibility since the First Step Act itself. Prior to these amendments, courts were divided over what constituted "extraordinary and compelling reasons," with some circuits limiting relief to terminal illness or permanent disability requiring 24-hour care. The new guideline eliminates that restrictive interpretation by enumerating four specific categories of qualifying reasons, each with its own evidentiary standards. First, medical circumstances now include any serious physical or mental condition that substantially diminishes the inmate's ability to provide self-care within the correctional environment, without requiring imminent death. Second, age-related circumstances apply to inmates who are 65 years or older, have served at least 10 years or 75% of their sentence, and demonstrate age-related deterioration not adequately addressed by the BOP's medical services. Third, family circumstances cover the death or incapacitation of the inmate's only family caregiver for minor children, or the incapacitation of the inmate's spouse or domestic partner who requires care. Fourth, the guideline includes a catch-all provision for any other reason that, individually or in combination, presents an extraordinary and compelling circumstance—this is the provision I find most useful for creative advocacy. In a recent case, I successfully argued that my client's documented history of severe PTSD, combined with the BOP's inability to provide trauma-informed therapy and the client's completion of 85% of his sentence, constituted an extraordinary and compelling reason under this catch-all category. The government opposed vigorously, but the court agreed that the combination of factors, even without a terminal diagnosis, warranted reduction to time served. Defense counsel must compile medical records, mental health evaluations, and BOP capacity reports to build this evidentiary record before filing.

Serving 75% of Your Sentence Is No Longer the Only Path: The New Time-Served Calculation and the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) Factors

One of the most misunderstood aspects of the expanded compassionate release framework is the relationship between the sentence-served percentage and the court's obligation under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) to impose a sentence sufficient but not greater than necessary. The old practice, which many judges applied informally, required inmates to have served at least 50% to 75% of their sentence before courts would even consider compassionate release. The 2024 guidelines explicitly reject any rigid percentage threshold, instead directing courts to consider the inmate's individual circumstances and the nature of the underlying offense. I recently represented a client who had served only 35% of a 15-year sentence for a nonviolent drug trafficking offense, but who developed end-stage renal disease requiring dialysis three times per week. The BOP's medical unit was understaffed and could not provide the prescribed dialysis schedule, causing my client to miss treatments and suffer repeated hospitalizations. The court granted compassionate release after finding that the remaining sentence was greater than necessary under § 3553(a)(2)(D), which requires adequate medical care as part of the punishment. The § 3553(a) factors require a holistic analysis that includes the history and characteristics of the defendant, the need to provide medical care, and the need to avoid unwarranted sentencing disparities. Defense counsel must prepare a detailed memorandum addressing each factor with specific evidence, not just boilerplate arguments. I always include a comparison chart showing how similarly situated defendants with similar medical conditions received shorter sentences or compassionate release in other districts, using publicly available PACER records to demonstrate the absence of unwarranted disparity. The government will argue that release undermines respect for the law, but the statute and guidelines now recognize that keeping a dying or severely ill person incarcerated does not serve any legitimate penological purpose.

Danger to the Community: How to Overcome the Government's Primary Objection Under 18 U.S.C. § 3142(g)

The government's most common opposition argument in compassionate release cases is that the inmate poses a danger to the community under 18 U.S.C. § 3142(g), even if the medical or family circumstances are compelling. In my experience, prosecutors reflexively cite the original offense conduct—often a violent crime or drug trafficking—without acknowledging the inmate's rehabilitation, institutional discipline record, or reduced physical capacity due to illness. The First Step Act and the 2024 guidelines require courts to make a forward-looking assessment of dangerousness, not a backward-looking judgment about the original crime. I have successfully rebutted danger arguments by presenting evidence of the inmate's completion of all available rehabilitation programs, a clean institutional disciplinary record for at least 12 months, and a detailed reentry plan that includes housing, employment, and medical care coordination. For elderly or medically frail clients, I commission a forensic medical evaluation that documents the client's inability to engage in violent conduct due to physical limitations. In one case, my client was a 72-year-old man with congestive heart failure who used a walker and required supplemental oxygen; the government argued he was dangerous because his original conviction involved assault with a deadly weapon 18 years earlier. The court rejected the government's argument after I presented evidence that the client could not walk unassisted, much less commit a violent act. The § 3142(g) factors also require the court to consider the weight of the evidence against the defendant, which is largely irrelevant at the compassionate release stage because the conviction is final. Defense counsel should prepare a danger-assessment brief that distinguishes between the original offense and the current circumstances, emphasizing that the purpose of compassionate release is not to relitigate guilt but to evaluate present risk. I recommend including affidavits from family members, prospective employers, and medical providers who attest to the client's support network and supervision capabilities. Courts are increasingly receptive to these arguments when the evidence is concrete and the reentry plan is specific, not aspirational.

If you or a loved one is incarcerated and facing a serious medical condition, age-related decline, or a family emergency that may qualify for compassionate release under the expanded First Step Act and 2024 guidelines, do not wait for the Bureau of Prisons to act on its own. The administrative process is complex, the evidentiary requirements are stringent, and the government will oppose release vigorously in most cases. I have spent 25 years navigating these statutes from both sides of the courtroom, and I know exactly what evidence courts require to grant relief. Contact my office today for a confidential consultation to evaluate your eligibility, prepare the administrative request, and file a compelling motion that gives you the best chance of returning home to your family. Time is of the essence in these cases, especially when medical conditions are progressive or family circumstances are urgent—every day you delay is a day the BOP uses to strengthen its opposition.