WASHINGTON – Supreme Court justices heard arguments Tuesday on which factors courts can consider when revoking supervised release for criminal defendants when not all possible factors are explicitly listed under federal law.
Supervised release is when someone follows strict conditions after they have finished their sentence from federal prison, unlike parole, which releases someone early on good behavior.
The case was brought by Edgardo Esteras, who served 27 months in federal prison for drug trafficking related convictions before starting a six-year supervised release in Ohio in 2020. However, in 2023 a compliance check uncovered a firearm, violating Esteras’ release terms and leading to his arrest.
At his revocation hearing, Judge Benita Pearson described Esteras’s behavior as “dangerous” and “disrespectful” and sentenced Esteras to an additional two years in prison and three more years of supervised release after that.
At the core of Esteras v. United States is whether judges like Pearson can consider factors such as the seriousness of the offense and promoting respect for the law when revoking supervised release, even though those factors aren’t explicitly listed in the law Congress wrote.
Under the Sentencing Reform Act of 1984, federal courts can impose supervised release for those convicted of federal crimes. This means that after serving a prison sentence, individuals remain under court supervision as they transition back into society. During this time, they must follow specific conditions set by a judge, and violations could result in additional prison time.
Comparably, parole, which allows early release from prison for good behavior, lets judges consider factors like the seriousness of the original crime, respect for the law, and just punishment when handling violations. However, while the Sentencing Reform Act requires judges to weigh these factors during initial sentencing, the Act omits them for supervised release violations.
The Supreme Court is weighing whether judges can consider the seriousness of the original crime when deciding if someone should return to prison for violating supervised release since supervised release is not meant to further punish someone but to rehabilitate.
“If you violate your parole, you have done a morally wrong thing…we put some faith in you, we let you out early,” said Jacob Schuman, a law professor at Temple University who wrote an amicus brief in support of Esteras. “But that doesn’t apply to supervised release. Nobody did you any favors by giving you supervised release. You haven’t done anything morally wrong.”
This issue has divided nine of the U.S. Circuit appellate courts. Chief Judge Jeffrey Sutton of the Sixth Circuit, in his majority opinion, wrote that the statute does not limit judges to only the enumerated factors, granting discretion in considering broader judicial principles, including deterrence and community safety. Four additional circuits ruled similarly, while four others sided with Esteras.
Masha Hansford, arguing for the government, said judges should have the option—but not the obligation—to consider factors like the seriousness of the offense, respect for the law, and just punishment. She compared it to a college allowing students to take extra courses beyond the required prerequisites for declaring a major.
19,418 people violated the terms of their supervised release in 2021, which is about 30% of all people on supervised release, according to the U.S. Courts.
Brooklyn Law School Professor Cynthia Godsoe said a judge’s job is to interpret and apply laws, not create new rules or expand their powers beyond what the law permits.
“What we argued in the amicus brief is judges overstepping their role to impose these sentences,” Godsoe said. “Even if you’re not incarcerated, you’re still under supervision.”
Godsoe’s bottom line: Congress deliberately omitted factors regarding what judges can and can’t consider regarding supervised release revocation.
Justice Neil Gorsuch approached the issue from a “linguistic perspective,” arguing that the statute’s language did not explicitly prohibit judges from considering additional factors. “I’m not sure it quite goes so far to say you must not consider other factors,” he said, noting the statute’s absence of a clear “must-not” clause.
If the Supreme Court rules in favor of Esteras, it will standardize the factors judges can consider when revoking supervised release, ensuring they adhere strictly to those explicitly listed in federal law.
Justice Samuel Alito expressed concern about the practical implications of restricting judicial considerations during supervised release revocation hearings.
“How is the judge going to consider the nature and circumstances of that offense without considering the severity of the offense?” Alito asked.
