Intriguing action, but no formal vote, from US Sentencing Commission on retroactivity of 2024 guideline amendments
As noted in this post yesterday, this afternoon the US Sentencing Commission had a scheduled public meeting, and the big official agenda items were “Possible Vote on Final 2024–2025 Policy Priorities” and “Possible Vote on Retroactivity of Certain 2024 Amendments.” And, as noted in this post from earlier today, the Commission did vote, and voted unanimously, for this official set of new policy priorities. But, interestingly, the Commission did not vote on the issue of retroactivity of certain 2024 amendments.
When reaching the retroactivity issue in the agenda (starting at around the 13:45 minute mark of the meeting recording here), the matter failed “for lack of a motion.” The Commission Chair subsequently explained that “many have called for the Commission to identify clear principles that will guide its approach to retroactivity” and that, “after deep deliberation,” the Commission decided to heed those calls and apparently defer any vote on retroactivity.
Notably, my colleague at the Sentencing Matters Substack, Jonathan Wroblewski, wrote this thoughtful post on this topic titled “Is it Time for the U.S. Sentencing Commission to Issue a Detailed, Written, and Reasoned Opinion on When it Applies Guideline Amendments Retroactively?”. I surmise that the Commission has decided that it is time for a new approach to its retroactivity decision-making, but it is not yet clear just what that now means either for retroactivity decisions generally or for the retroactivity of certain 2024 amendments. Stay tuned.
- US Sentencing Commission sets out broad, general request concerning proposed priorities for 2024 to 2025 amendment cycle
- US Sentencing Commission releases over 1200 pages of public comment on proposed priorities
- US Sentencing Commission … conducting “Public Hearing on Retroactivity” for its proposed 2024 guideline amendments
- US Sentencing Commission votes to adopt priorities that “reflect calls to simplify sentencing, reduce the costs of unnecessary incarceration, and promote public safety”