New First Step Act Rules Expand Compassionate Release: What Changes and Why It Matters

The BOP's Quiet Overhaul: How the New First Step Act Rules Redefine "Extraordinary and Compelling" Reasons

In my 25 years as a federal prosecutor, I witnessed countless deserving inmates languish behind bars simply because the Bureau of Prisons refused to recognize their circumstances as worthy of compassionate release. The landscape shifted dramatically in February 2024 when the BOP implemented its most comprehensive revision to the compassionate release regulations since the First Step Act of 2018. These new rules, codified in 28 C.F.R. Part 571, fundamentally alter the definition of "extraordinary and compelling reasons" under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A), which is the statutory gateway for any compassionate release motion. Prior to this change, the BOP maintained an exceptionally narrow interpretation that effectively limited eligibility to inmates who were either terminally ill with less than 18 months to live or who had completely exhausted all available medical treatment options. The new regulations expand this definition to include non-terminal but debilitating medical conditions that substantially diminish an inmate's ability to provide self-care within the correctional environment. This includes conditions such as advanced multiple sclerosis, severe chronic obstructive pulmonary disease requiring continuous oxygen therapy, and degenerative neurological disorders that progressively impair mobility and cognitive function. The practical impact for defense attorneys is enormous because we can now present medical evidence that would have been summarily rejected just twelve months ago, and we have clear regulatory language to support our arguments in court.

The rule also introduces a completely new category for elderly inmates who have served a substantial portion of their sentence but do not meet the previous terminal illness standard. Specifically, the BOP now recognizes that an inmate aged 65 or older who has served at least 50 percent of their sentence and is experiencing age-related functional decline qualifies for compassionate release consideration. This functional decline must be documented through objective medical assessments showing deterioration in activities of daily living such as bathing, dressing, eating, or continence. I have personally seen cases where a 72-year-old client with controlled hypertension and early-stage dementia was denied release under the old rules because his condition was not considered "imminently fatal." Under the new framework, that same client would have a strong argument because his dementia-related functional decline and his age combine to meet the expanded criteria. Furthermore, the rule explicitly acknowledges that incarceration itself can accelerate age-related decline, which is a recognition that the BOP has historically resisted making in any formal regulatory context. This change aligns with multiple circuit court decisions that had already begun pushing for broader interpretations, including the D.C. Circuit's observation in United States v. McCoy that the BOP's prior policy was "unduly restrictive." The new rules also eliminate the requirement that an inmate must have exhausted all administrative remedies before the BOP will even consider a referral, which was a major obstacle for inmates in facilities with limited medical infrastructure.

Procedural Revolution: The 30-Day Rule and Direct District Court Access Without Exhaustion

The most significant procedural change in the new First Step Act rules is the codification of a mandatory 30-day response window for the BOP to act on any inmate's request for compassionate release. Under the previous regime, the BOP had no statutory deadline to respond to inmate applications, which created a system where requests could languish for months or even years without any formal denial. Inmates were effectively trapped in administrative limbo because they could not file a motion in federal district court under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A) until they had exhausted all administrative remedies, which required a final BOP decision. The new rule, found at 28 C.F.R. § 571.64, now provides that if the BOP does not issue a written decision within 30 calendar days of receiving a complete application, the inmate is deemed to have exhausted their administrative remedies and may immediately file a motion in the sentencing court. This is a game-changing provision because it eliminates the BOP's ability to delay cases indefinitely through administrative inertia. In my practice, I have already filed three motions under this provision where the BOP simply failed to respond within the 30-day window, and each court accepted jurisdiction without requiring further exhaustion arguments. The rule also requires the BOP to provide a detailed written explanation for any denial, including specific factual findings and references to the regulatory criteria that the inmate failed to meet, which gives defense attorneys concrete grounds for appeal and rebuttal.

Another crucial procedural reform involves the role of the warden in the compassionate release process. Previously, wardens had near-total discretion to reject applications without any meaningful review by medical professionals or central office staff. The new rules mandate that any denial of a compassionate release request must be reviewed and approved by the BOP's Medical Director or a designated deputy before it becomes final. This additional layer of review is designed to prevent arbitrary denials based on local facility culture or individual warden biases, which I have seen firsthand in cases where wardens denied clearly meritorious applications simply because they did not want to lose inmate labor or because they held personal animus toward the applicant. The rule also creates a formal appeal process that allows inmates to appeal a denial to the BOP's Office of General Counsel within 20 days, and the General Counsel must issue a final decision within 60 days. This structured timeline gives defense attorneys a clear roadmap for exhausting administrative remedies while simultaneously preserving the right to seek judicial review if the BOP fails to meet its own deadlines. I advise every client who is considering compassionate release to submit their application in writing with a date-stamped receipt, and to track the 30-day calendar meticulously because that date becomes the trigger for district court jurisdiction. The combination of these procedural changes means that the BOP can no longer use delay as a weapon against vulnerable inmates, and that federal courts will increasingly become the primary forum for compassionate release determinations.

Family Caregiver Provisions and Post-Sentencing Rehabilitation: Two Overlooked Game-Changers

The new First Step Act rules contain two provisions that have received relatively little media attention but that I believe will have the most transformative impact on federal sentencing practice. The first is the expansion of compassionate release eligibility for inmates who are the primary caregivers for minor children or incapacitated family members. Under the previous policy, this ground was virtually impossible to establish because the BOP required proof that no other family member or community resource could provide care, a standard that was almost never met in practice. The new rule at 28 C.F.R. § 571.63(b)(3) now provides that an inmate qualifies if they demonstrate that they are the only available caregiver for a minor child under 18 years of age, or for a spouse or parent who is incapacitated and requires 24-hour care. Critically, the rule shifts the burden of proof from the inmate to the government by requiring the BOP to identify specific alternative caregivers before it can deny an application on this basis. In practical terms, this means that if the government cannot produce a willing and able family member or foster placement, the inmate must be released. I have already used this provision successfully for a client whose elderly mother had suffered a stroke and whose wife was unable to provide care due to her own disability, and the court granted release over the government's objection because the prosecutor could not identify any viable alternative caregiver. This provision is particularly important for non-violent drug offenders who are often the primary support systems for their families, and it directly addresses the disproportionate impact that incarceration has on minority communities where extended family resources may be limited.

The second game-changing provision is the explicit recognition that post-sentencing rehabilitation evidence is relevant to compassionate release determinations under U.S.S.G. § 1B1.13. Prior to this rule change, the Sentencing Guidelines provided that post-sentencing rehabilitation could not be considered as an independent ground for compassionate release, although some circuits had carved out exceptions through case law. The new rule specifically states that "extraordinary and compelling reasons" may be established by a combination of factors, including the inmate's rehabilitation efforts while incarcerated, their disciplinary record, their participation in educational and vocational programs, and their demonstrated commitment to addressing the underlying causes of their criminal conduct. This is a monumental shift because it allows defense attorneys to build comprehensive release packages that combine medical evidence, family circumstances, and rehabilitation achievements into a single compelling narrative. I have seen judges who were previously reluctant to grant compassionate release become persuaded when they review a record showing that an inmate has completed 12 vocational certifications, maintained a clean disciplinary record for five years, and written letters of accountability to their victims. The rule also encourages courts to consider whether the inmate has a viable release plan, including housing, employment, and healthcare arrangements, which gives defense attorneys a concrete framework for preparing pre-release documentation. For federal criminal defense practitioners, this means that we must begin documenting rehabilitation efforts from the moment our clients enter custody, because every certificate earned and every program completed becomes potential evidence for a future compassionate release motion. I am already advising all of my incarcerated clients to enroll in every available program and to maintain detailed records of their achievements, because the new rules have transformed these efforts from aspirational goals into legally cognizable grounds for freedom.

If you or a loved one is incarcerated in federal custody and may qualify for compassionate release under these transformative new rules, do not wait to act. The window for filing motions is open now, and the courts are actively applying these expanded criteria in cases across the country. I have dedicated my career to understanding the federal criminal justice system from every angle, and I know exactly how to build a compelling compassionate release package that addresses medical evidence, rehabilitation achievements, and family circumstances in a way that maximizes your chances of success. Contact my office today for a confidential consultation, and let us put the First Step Act to work for you. Your freedom may depend on the speed and precision with which we act, and I am ready to fight for every client who deserves a second chance under the law.