A Comprehensive Guide to Compassionate Release in Federal Court -

Compassionate release is a legal mechanism that allows federal prisoners to seek early release or a reduced sentence due to extraordinary and compelling reasons. In practical terms, it means an inmate can ask the court to let them out of prison before their sentence is fully served if severe circumstances justify it. This guide provides a clear overview of how compassionate release works in U.S. federal courts, who might qualify, and what the process entails. We will cover the governing law (18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)), eligibility criteria (what counts as “extraordinary and compelling”), procedural steps (including how to file a motion, whether on your own or through an attorney), the role of the Bureau of Prisons (BOP) and wardens, the impact of the First Step Act of 2018, important case law and U.S. Sentencing Commission guidance, factors courts consider in decisions (like the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factors), common grounds for release (terminal illness, advanced age, family emergencies, COVID-19 concerns, etc.), typical obstacles and reasons for denial, recent trends (including statistics), and example scenarios illustrating key points.

In short, this guide explains everything you need to know about compassionate release in federal court—what it is, who qualifies, how to apply, and how the compassionate relief act lawyers at NSLF can fight for you.

Statutory Authority for Compassionate Release (18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A))

The foundation of federal compassionate release is a statute: 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A). This law authorizes a sentencing court to reduce a term of imprisonment after sentencing if certain conditions are met. Under the statute, a judge may modify an inmate’s sentence if the court finds that “extraordinary and compelling reasons” warrant a reduction, after considering the applicable factors in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) (the standard sentencing factors discussed below), and that any reduction is consistent with applicable policy statements issued by the U.S. Sentencing Commission. In plain language, the law creates an exception to the normal rule that federal sentences cannot be changed once imposed. It gives judges the power to end a prison sentence early or replace it with a shorter one (often time served) if and only if an unusual, severe circumstance arises that justifies letting the person out early, and if releasing the person early would still be consistent with the goals of sentencing.

Historical context: Prior to 2018, this statute had a significant limitation – only the Director of the Bureau of Prisons could file a compassionate release motion on an inmate’s behalf. In other words, an inmate could not directly petition the court; they first had to convince the BOP to make the request. Courts could only act on a compassionate release if the BOP brought the motion. This made compassionate release exceedingly rare in practice. By all accounts, the BOP used this power sparingly: for example, in 2016 the Justice Department’s Inspector General found the BOP approved only about 3% of compassionate release requests, and many prisoners died waiting for decisions. From 2013 to 2017, about 5,400 inmates applied to the BOP for compassionate release and only 6% were approved, with an average wait of 4.5 months for a decision (and sadly about 5% of applicants died before getting an answer). Because of these hurdles, compassionate release was almost never a realistic option for prisoners in earlier years.

The First Step Act’s Expansion: In December 2018, Congress passed the First Step Act, a major criminal justice reform law. One crucial change it made was to expand compassionate release access. The First Step Act amended § 3582(c)(1)(A) to allow inmates themselves to file a motion in court for compassionate release, after first asking the warden to approve their request (details on the process below). This change was intended to fix the “gatekeeper” problem and make it easier for worthy cases to be heard by judges. As a result, since 2019 there has been a dramatic increase in compassionate release motions filed in federal courts. In the years following the First Step Act, thousands of federal prisoners applied for compassionate release, especially during the COVID-19 pandemic when health risks in prisons were extraordinarily high. The First Step Act also explicitly acknowledged that compassionate release should be available for older and sick inmates who pose little risk, and it gave judges more flexibility to determine what qualifies as “extraordinary and compelling.” We will discuss those criteria next.

What Counts as “Extraordinary and Compelling Reasons”?

Eligibility criteria for compassionate release center on the term “extraordinary and compelling reasons.” But what does that actually mean? Neither the statute nor Congress provides a precise definition, instead delegating to the U.S. Sentencing Commission the task of describing examples in a policy statement. The Sentencing Commission’s policy statement (found at U.S. Sentencing Guidelines §1B1.13) and its commentary have historically listed several broad categories of situations that can qualify as extraordinary and compelling:

Medical Reasons: Serious health conditions can justify compassionate release. This includes terminal illnesses (for example, a late-stage cancer with a short life expectancy), as well as other serious medical conditions that are not necessarily terminal but substantially diminish the inmate’s ability to provide self-care in prison and are conditions from which the inmate is not expected to recover. Examples in this category would be advanced progressive illnesses or debilitating medical or mental health conditions. In practical terms, if an inmate is suffering from a severe, chronic condition (such as end-stage organ failure, ALS, advanced dementia, or other serious disabilities) that cannot be adequately managed in a prison setting, or if they are so ill or incapacitated that they can’t take care of themselves in custody, the court may consider that an extraordinary and compelling reason for release. The COVID-19 pandemic also brought many claims in this category: inmates with high-risk health profiles (like severe heart or lung conditions or compromised immune systems) argued that their vulnerability to COVID-19 in prison was an extraordinary and compelling reason for release. Many judges did agree, particularly in 2020 when the virus was rampant in prisons, that specific medical vulnerability in combination with the pandemic could qualify as an extraordinary circumstance. (For instance, during the first months of COVID-19, over 10,000 federal prisoners applied for compassionate release, citing pandemic risks, though the BOP wardens approved less than 2% of those requests – more on the BOP’s role below.)
Age and Deterioration: Elderly prisoners may qualify if they have served a significant portion of their sentence and are experiencing age-related decline in health. The guidelines (prior to recent amendments) noted that inmates age 65 or older who have served at least 10 years or 75% of their sentence and who are suffering from serious deterioration in health due to aging could be considered for compassionate release. The logic here is that some older inmates become increasingly infirm or disabled, and continuing to incarcerate them serves little purpose if they no longer pose a danger and have already served a long sentence. (There is also a separate statutory provision for certain older inmates: 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)(ii) allows prisoners who are over 70 years old and have served 30 years of a very long sentence for certain serious offenses to be considered for release. However, that provision is very narrow and rarely used; the more common route for elderly inmates is under the general “extraordinary and compelling” standard, considering age-related health issues.) In short, advanced age coupled with prolonged incarceration and declining health can qualify as an extraordinary reason.
Family Circumstances: Compassionate release can also be granted for certain urgent family needs of the inmate. The Sentencing Commission’s policy examples include scenarios such as the death or incapacitation of the caregiver of the inmate’s minor child, or the incapacitation of the inmate’s spouse or registered partner when the inmate would be the only available caregiver for that partner. In plainer terms, if an incarcerated person is the only person who can take care of a dependent family member, and that family member’s caretaker dies or becomes completely unable to provide care, that situation might be deemed extraordinary and compelling. For example, if a prisoner’s spouse becomes severely disabled or a parent caring for the prisoner’s young children passes away, the prisoner may ask for release to take over caregiving responsibilities. Courts do scrutinize these requests closely – one must show that the inmate truly is the only person who can step into the caregiving role and that the situation is dire. Simply missing one’s family or wanting to help at home is not enough; it must be a genuine crisis of care.
“Other” Extraordinary Circumstances: The policy has long included a catch-all category for “other reasons” – essentially, any extraordinary and compelling reason other than the above, as determined by the Director of the BOP (under the old regime) or by the court. This is intentionally broad, reflecting the fact that it’s impossible to list every scenario that might be compelling. Under the pre-2018 system, the Bureau of Prisons had discretion to decide what unlisted circumstances merited a motion. After the First Step Act, many courts have held that they themselves can independently determine “other” extraordinary and compelling reasons beyond the listed examples, since inmates can now motion the court directly. This has led to case-by-case developments. For instance, courts have sometimes considered changes in sentencing law or unusually long sentences as potential “extraordinary” reasons – especially when a defendant is serving a sentence that is dramatically longer than what would be imposed under current law for the same offense. Some judges (in circuits like the First, Fourth, Ninth, and Tenth Circuits) have ruled that such a major sentencing disparity caused by a change in the law can contribute to an extraordinary reason for release. For example, the First Step Act itself changed the law to end “stacking” of certain mandatory sentences (notably under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) for firearm offenses), but it did not make that change retroactive. As a result, some individuals sentenced before 2018 received stacked sentences far longer than what they would get if sentenced after the law changed. A number of courts decided it was “extraordinary and compelling” that these individuals were serving, say, 30 years extra solely due to a now-repealed sentencing practice. However, other courts (e.g. Third, Sixth, Eighth, D.C. Circuits) disagreed, finding that allowing release based on non-retroactive law changes undermines Congressional intent. In 2023, the U.S. Sentencing Commission responded to this debate by amending its policy guidance to explicitly include certain changes in law or grossly inequitable sentences as possible extraordinary reasons. The new guidelines, effective November 2023, expand the recognized categories of extraordinary and compelling reasons. For example, they add that if a prisoner is a victim of sexual assault by a correctional officer, this trauma can qualify as an extraordinary reason for release. They also acknowledge that in some cases, a change in sentencing laws that creates a gross disparity between the sentence the inmate is serving and the sentence likely if sentenced today may be considered an extraordinary circumstance (though this particular provision has been controversial). Overall, the “other reasons” category gives courts flexibility to deal with unique or unexpected situations – essentially any case where continued imprisonment would be unconscionably unjust or cruel in light of new events or information.

Key point: The bar for “extraordinary and compelling” is high. It’s not meant to be used for ordinary hardships or routine considerations. Many inmates face difficult conditions, but compassionate release is reserved for those rare cases where something fundamentally changes the equation of justice – such as a prisoner’s health collapsing, a family catastrophe, or other extreme circumstances outside the inmate’s control. The First Step Act’s changes mean that today federal judges have broad authority to interpret what qualifies as extraordinary and compelling. Judges may now consider the full array of grounds reasonably encompassed by the phrase and essentially any situation that a fair-minded person would deem extraordinary and compelling can be weighed. This gives inmates a fighting chance to make their case even if their reason isn’t explicitly listed in an old guideline, so long as it truly is exceptional. That said, meeting the definition of extraordinary and compelling is just the first step – even if you qualify, the court must also decide that release is appropriate in your case after considering public safety and other factors (more on those factors shortly).

The Role of the Bureau of Prisons (BOP) and the First Step Act’s Impact

BOP’s initial role: Even after the First Step Act, the Bureau of Prisons still plays an important gatekeeping role at the start of the compassionate release process. The law requires that an inmate first submit a request to the warden of their facility for compassionate release. The inmate typically does this via an administrative request (sometimes called an “Inmate Request for Reduction in Sentence” or similar). The request should outline the extraordinary circumstances and propose a release plan. Once the request is submitted, one of two things must happen before the inmate can go to court: either the request is fully exhausted within the BOP (meaning the warden and possibly the BOP Central Office deny the request and the inmate has appealed that denial as far as possible in the BOP’s Administrative Remedy Program), or 30 days pass without a final decision from the warden. After either of those conditions is met – denial (with exhaustion of appeals) or 30 days of waiting with no response – the inmate is free to file a motion in court on their own behalf. In summary, asking the warden is a mandatory first step. The First Step Act didn’t eliminate the BOP from the process entirely; instead, it gave the BOP a chance to review requests first, but crucially, it gave inmates the power to proceed to court if the BOP does nothing or says no within a reasonable time.

From a practical standpoint, this means the BOP still influences compassionate release in a couple of ways. First, the BOP’s stance can carry weight – if the warden supports a request, the Department of Justice (DOJ) may choose to join in a motion or at least not oppose the inmate’s court motion. If the warden denies it, the inmate will likely face opposition from DOJ attorneys when they go to court. Second, the BOP often has internal guidelines (BOP Program Statements) outlining criteria for wardens to consider (historically, the BOP was quite strict in its internal criteria, which partly explains the low approval rates). However, under the new regime, the BOP’s failure to act does not lock the door. In fact, during the COVID-19 crisis, many wardens denied or ignored an overwhelming number of compassionate release requests – according to one report, as the pandemic surged in 2020, federal prison wardens denied or did not respond to 98% of compassionate release requests from medically vulnerable prisoners. For example, at the Federal Medical Center Carswell (a prison hospital in Texas), 349 women applied for compassionate release in early 2020 and the warden denied or ignored 346 of those requests, even though many applicants (like Marie Neba, a 56-year-old woman dying of cancer) fit the criteria of being terminally ill and not a danger. Stories like this highlight that BOP wardens often were (and sometimes still are) reluctant to approve releases. The only avenue for relief in such cases was to bring the matter to court, which the First Step Act now allows. Indeed, data showed that in the first three months of the pandemic, out of 10,940 requests filed to wardens, only 156 were approved by wardens, but hundreds of inmates were ultimately granted release by judges after filing motions in court. This demonstrates how the First Step Act’s change literally became a lifesaver for some inmates who could bypass inaction at the BOP level by seeking judicial review.

Effect of the First Step Act: The shift to allow inmate-filed motions has greatly increased the number of compassionate release cases heard by courts. Before 2018, as noted, the BOP filed just a few dozen motions per year (around two dozen on average). After the First Step Act, the numbers skyrocketed. During fiscal year 2020, for instance – which coincided with the worst of COVID in prisons – over 7,000 compassionate release motions were filed in federal courts. The Sentencing Commission reported that thousands of motions have been filed each year since. Many inmates who would have had no chance under the old system finally got a hearing in front of a judge. The First Step Act also broadened the scope of what might be considered “extraordinary and compelling.” Because the Sentencing Commission’s policy statement (which had limited categories) was not immediately updated after 2018, many courts took the position that they were not constrained by the old, narrow definitions when considering defendant-filed motions. In practice, this meant judges sometimes granted release for reasons beyond the original list – such as young inmates with severe illnesses, or inmates with family tragedies that didn’t neatly fit the old criteria, or the sentencing disparities noted earlier. In legal terms, courts found that the old policy (U.S.S.G. §1B1.13) was “not binding” for motions brought by inmates (as opposed to motions by BOP) and thus treated it as advisory. This landscape is continuing to evolve, especially now that the Sentencing Commission has updated the guideline (effective November 2023) to reflect the First Step Act changes and expand the recognized reasons for release. We now have a more modern compassionate release policy statement that includes additional categories (like those victimization and sentencing disparity scenarios mentioned). Going forward, there should be more consistency and clarity in how courts evaluate requests, though as noted some courts have resisted certain expansions (leading to a bit of a split in case law that may eventually require clarification by higher courts).

Bottom line: The BOP is where the process starts (you must make the request there), but the ultimate decision now lies with the courts in most cases, thanks to the First Step Act. If the BOP drags its feet or says no, an inmate only needs to wait at most 30 days before getting the matter before a judge. This was a deliberate reform to ensure that worthy cases don’t get bottlenecked or ignored. It also creates an incentive for the BOP to act on meritorious requests, knowing that a judge can step in regardless. In practice, many inmates will simultaneously submit the request to the warden and prepare their motion for court, so that when the 30 days elapse (or an official denial comes in), they can file in court immediately. We will next walk through the step-by-step procedure of how an inmate (or their lawyer) actually goes about requesting compassionate release.

Procedure: How to Seek Compassionate Release

Obtaining compassionate release involves both administrative steps with the BOP and a legal proceeding in court. Here is a step-by-step guide through the process:

Submit a Request to the Warden: The inmate (or someone on their behalf) must first write to the warden of their facility requesting compassionate release. This request should state the extraordinary and compelling reasons why the inmate believes they qualify. It’s helpful to include supporting details or documents (for example, a letter from a doctor about a medical condition, or a death certificate of a family member if citing family circumstances). The request can be informal, but many institutions have a template or form. The BOP Program Statement on compassionate release (often called “Reduction in Sentence”) provides that inmates should detail their reasons and may need to fill out certain forms for medical or family claims. It’s important to be as clear and thorough as possible at this stage, because the warden’s review will consider whether the situation meets the criteria set in BOP policy.
Wait for 30 Days / Exhaust Administrative Remedies: After submitting the request, the inmate must wait for the BOP’s process to play out. Under the law, the inmate can go to court after 30 days if there’s no response, or sooner if the request is formally denied and the inmate completes the BOP’s appeal process. In practice, many wardens respond with a denial fairly quickly (often within a few weeks), and inmates then can appeal that denial through the BOP’s Administrative Remedy process. However, the First Step Act allows the inmate to proceed to court even without appealing the denial if 30 days have passed since the initial request. (There’s a bit of nuance: if the BOP actually denies the request within that first 30 days, some courts have required the inmate to at least attempt the internal appeals or wait out the remainder of the 30 days – but many courts simply treat the 30-day wait as a standalone alternative to full exhaustion. In general, 30 days from request is the magic threshold to head to court.) It’s crucial not to skip this step: if an inmate files in court without first giving the warden a chance or before the 30 days are up, the court will likely dismiss the motion for failure to exhaust administrative remedies, as this is a statutory requirement. One exception is if the BOP itself files the motion for the inmate (in that case, exhaustion isn’t an issue because the BOP initiated it, but again, post-2018, inmate-filed motions are the norm).
Prepare and File the Motion in Court: After satisfying the 30-day/exhaustion requirement, the inmate can file a motion for compassionate release with the sentencing court (that is, the federal court where they were convicted and sentenced). If the inmate has a lawyer (such as a Federal Public Defender or a private attorney), the lawyer will draft and file the motion. If the inmate does not have a lawyer, they can file pro se (on their own). Federal courts provide forms to assist inmates filing pro se; for example, there’s an AO 250 form (Rev. 09/2024) which is a template motion for compassionate release that prisoners can fill out. In the motion, the inmate (or counsel) should clearly state the grounds for release, citing the extraordinary and compelling reasons (often referencing § 3582(c)(1)(A) and the categories from the Sentencing Commission’s policy) and provide evidence or documentation as exhibits. Common exhibits include medical records, letters from doctors or family, a proposed release plan (explaining where the inmate would live and how they’d be cared for if released), and any other supporting information (for example, certificates of rehabilitation programs completed in prison, or letters from BOP case managers). The AO form actually encourages including a proposed release plan and relevant attachments, and even has checkboxes for whether you want to request appointment of counsel to help with the motion. If filing pro se, an inmate can ask the court to appoint an attorney – often courts will assign the Federal Defender’s office to assist if the case has potential.
Government’s Response: After the motion is filed, the U.S. Attorney’s Office (the federal prosecutors) will get a chance to respond. In many cases, the government will file an opposition, arguing why the motion should be denied (or sometimes just providing relevant background and deferring to the court’s judgment). They may dispute that the inmate’s situation is truly “extraordinary and compelling,” or they may focus on the § 3553(a) factors and public safety concerns, saying that even if there’s a reason, the person shouldn’t be released early because of the nature of the crime or other factors. In some instances, if the BOP itself thinks the release is warranted (rare, but it happens), the government might actually agree or file a joint motion. During the COVID-19 emergency, we saw occasional cases where DOJ did not oppose release for inmates at extreme risk. But generally, expect an adversarial process where the inmate (through counsel or in their own filings) carries the burden to convince the judge, and the prosecutor may raise counterarguments.
Court Review and Decision: A federal judge – usually the same judge who sentenced the defendant (or a successor if the original judge is unavailable) – will review the motion and all submissions. In most compassionate release proceedings, there is no oral hearing; judges decide the matter based on the written briefs and the record, unless the judge specifically schedules a hearing (hearings are uncommon but possible if there are factual issues to resolve or if the judge wants to hear from counsel). The judge’s task is essentially two-fold: (a) determine whether an extraordinary and compelling reason has been proven, and (b) if so, assess whether a sentence reduction (release) is appropriate in light of the § 3553(a) factors and public safety considerations. The judge may order additional information (for example, an updated report on the inmate’s conduct in prison or input from probation officers about a release plan). Ultimately, the court will issue an order either granting or denying the motion. If granted, the court will usually resentence the defendant to a new sentence of “time served” (or modify conditions) effective immediately, often with an added term of supervised release to follow, and possibly special conditions like home confinement or drug treatment if relevant. If denied, the inmate remains in custody and typically cannot file another motion on the same grounds unless there’s a significant change in circumstances (repetitive or unfounded motions can be summarily denied).
Appeal (if denied): The inmate, if denied, can appeal the judge’s decision to the Court of Appeals. However, appeals can be difficult because the compassionate release statute gives judges broad discretion. An appellate court will usually only overturn a denial if the lower court made a legal or clear factual error or abused its discretion. In practice, successful appeals are relatively rare; most denials are upheld. If the motion is granted, the government could appeal, but given the length of appeal proceedings and the fact that the inmate might be out of custody in the meantime, such appeals are also rare (and often mooted if the inmate is already released). Generally, the trial judge’s decision is the final word in compassionate release cases.
Release Process: If the judge grants the motion, the order is transmitted to the BOP, and the inmate will be processed for release. This can happen very fast – sometimes within a day or two – because it’s effectively a court-ordered sentence reduction. The inmate will be released from prison to begin their new term (usually supervised release under U.S. Probation supervision). A solid release plan is critical here: typically the inmate would go to live at a specified residence (with family or a halfway house) and continue any medical care or other plans laid out in the motion. The court may require the inmate to be placed on home confinement or other monitoring as a condition of supervised release, especially if they still have a portion of their sentence left that’s being forgiven.

Important: Seeking compassionate release can be done pro se, and many inmates have succeeded on their own. However, having legal counsel can be a big help given the complexity of the law and the need to present strong evidence. Federal Public Defender offices across the country have assisted many prisoners with First Step Act compassionate release motions. In some districts, when an inmate files pro se, the court automatically notifies the Defender’s office to review if they can help. If you or a loved one is pursuing compassionate release, it’s wise to reach out for legal help if possible – the process requires gathering records, writing legal arguments, and navigating both BOP and court procedures, which can be daunting from behind bars. Many organizations and attorneys are now familiar with compassionate release due to the surge of cases in recent years.

Factors the Court Considers in Deciding a Compassionate Release

Meeting the basic eligibility (extraordinary reasons + exhaustion of the warden request) is necessary, but not sufficient – the court doesn’t automatically grant release even if you have a qualifying reason. The judge must also be convinced that releasing the inmate early is appropriate and aligns with the purposes of sentencing. Key considerations include:

18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) Sentencing Factors: These are the familiar factors a court considers at every sentencing. They include things like the nature and circumstances of the offense, the history and characteristics of the defendant, the need for the sentence to reflect the seriousness of the offense, to promote respect for the law, and to provide just punishment; the need for deterrence (both specific deterrence of the defendant and general deterrence of others), the need to protect the public from further crimes of the defendant, and the need to provide the defendant with any necessary education, training, or medical care. When evaluating a compassionate release motion, the judge essentially re-weighs these factors in light of the new circumstances. For example, if an inmate was convicted of a very serious drug offense and has only served half of a lengthy sentence, the court might find that releasing him early would not sufficiently address the seriousness of the offense or deterrence goals, and thus deny the motion even if a health issue is present. On the other hand, if that same inmate is now 30 years older, in ill health, and has had an exemplary prison record, the balance of factors might shift in favor of release (perhaps the need for further punishment has diminished, etc.). The court has to ensure that an early release wouldn’t result in a sentence that is unjustly low in light of all the circumstances. Essentially, the judge asks: Even if I’m allowed to release this person, should I do so, given the offense they committed and the time they’ve served (or not served) so far? The § 3553(a) analysis is often where many motions fail, especially if the inmate has served only a small portion of a sentence for a very grave crime.
Danger to the Community (Public Safety): Separate from (but related to) the § 3553(a) factors is the consideration of whether the inmate’s release would pose a danger to others or the community. The Sentencing Commission’s policy (when it only allowed BOP-filed motions) explicitly required that the inmate “is not a danger to the safety of any other person or to the community, as provided under 18 U.S.C. § 3142(g)” (the bail statute’s criteria) before compassionate release could be granted. Even though that policy statement wasn’t binding on defendant-filed motions for a time, in practice courts do take public safety very seriously. They look at things like the nature of the inmate’s original offense (was it violent? did it involve weapons?), the inmate’s behavior in prison (any violence or serious infractions while incarcerated?), and any evidence about the inmate’s risk of reoffending if released. Section 3142(g) factors include the weight of evidence and nature of the offense, but at this stage (post-conviction) the focus is really on the danger posed by release. For instance, an inmate who was a large-scale drug trafficker with a history of violence might have a hard time convincing a court that they won’t be a danger if released early, whereas an inmate convicted of a nonviolent fraud who is now elderly and sick might be seen as low-risk. The court may also consider whether the inmate has a stable release plan that mitigates any risk (like living with family, having supervision, etc.). If the judge is not convinced that the person can be released without endangering the public, the motion will be denied – no matter how sympathetic the circumstances. Public safety is a threshold issue: judges do not want to release someone who might commit new crimes or harm someone.
Consistency with Sentencing Commission Policy: The statute requires that a reduction be consistent with applicable policy statements. As discussed, the Sentencing Commission’s updated §1B1.13 (Nov 2023) now applies to defendant-filed motions and includes a broadened set of criteria. Under this policy, the Commission essentially endorses the categories we outlined (medical, age, family, victims of abuse, changes in law, etc.) as potential extraordinary reasons. One notable point: the Commission’s policy reaffirms that rehabilitation alone (i.e. the inmate’s good conduct or self-improvement in prison) is not an extraordinary and compelling reason for release. Congress had stated this in 28 U.S.C. § 994(t), and it remains true – no matter how model a prisoner you’ve been, simply being rehabilitated is expected and by itself doesn’t justify early release. However, rehabilitation can matter in the overall decision: a solid record of rehabilitation will strengthen a motion by showing that the inmate has changed for the better and is less likely to reoffend (this goes to the danger and 3553(a) analysis), but there must still be some separate compelling circumstance to trigger consideration in the first place.
Nature of the Proposed Release Plan: While not an official statutory factor, in practical terms judges consider “where will this person go and what will they do if I release them?” A good release plan (living arrangements, medical care, how they will support themselves, etc.) can reassure the court that the inmate will be able to reintegrate and get needed treatment or support. For medical cases, judges want to know that the inmate will have proper care outside prison (for example, being released to hospice or to a family member who can provide nursing care). For family caregiver cases, judges want to see proof of the family situation and that the inmate truly will be stepping into that caregiver role productively. In short, the plan post-release should align with the reasons for release. The court may impose conditions to ensure the release plan is followed (such as requiring the person to be on home confinement with electronic monitoring if they need to be restricted, or requiring medical check-ins, etc.).

When a compassionate release is granted, it’s because both components lined up: (1) an extraordinary and compelling reason was proven, and (2) the judge determined that releasing the inmate (or reducing the sentence) would not unduly undermine the sentencing goals and public safety. It is a holistic, equitable decision – part legal standard, part discretionary call by the judge weighing mercy and justice. Different judges can weigh these factors differently, which is why outcomes can sometimes vary for similar cases.

Common Grounds for Compassionate Release (and Examples)

Let’s recap and expand on the most common grounds on which compassionate release is sought and granted, along with example scenarios for each. These examples illustrate how the principles discussed translate into real-life cases:

Terminal Illness (Imminent End-of-Life): Perhaps the clearest case for compassionate release is an inmate who is terminally ill with a very limited life expectancy. Example: John Doe is a 60-year-old federal inmate serving a 10-year sentence for a nonviolent offense. He has been diagnosed with Stage IV pancreatic cancer and doctors estimate he has only 3-4 months to live. He is bedridden much of the time. John applies for compassionate release so he can receive hospice care and die at home with family. In a case like this, if John has a clean record in prison and a suitable plan for care, a court will likely find extraordinary and compelling reasons — “a serious and advanced illness with an end-of-life trajectory” meets the criteria. Courts generally view allowing a terminally ill prisoner to spend their final days with family as a humane outcome that doesn’t compromise the goals of punishment (especially if most of the sentence was served or the crime was not violent). Indeed, BOP policy and Sentencing Commission guidelines explicitly recognize terminal illness as a valid ground. Provided John is not a danger (and someone in his condition likely is not), a judge would weigh the 3553(a) factors and often conclude that continuing to incarcerate a dying man serves little purpose — thus granting the motion. (Unfortunately, under the old regime many inmates died waiting, as illustrated by cases like Marie Neba in 2020 who passed away from cancer after her warden ignored her request, but with direct court access now, such outcomes are less common.)
Serious Medical Condition or Disability: This refers to situations where the inmate isn’t necessarily dying right now but has a serious condition that permanently diminishes their ability to care for themselves in prison. Example: Jane Smith is 45 and suffered a massive stroke while incarcerated, leaving her partially paralyzed and confined to a wheelchair. She cannot perform basic self-care activities without assistance and requires daily medical attention. She has 3 years left on her sentence. Jane could seek compassionate release on the grounds that her condition is extraordinarily debilitating. The argument would be that incarceration is both unnecessary and excessively harsh given her health – she might get better care outside of prison, and she poses no threat to public safety in her condition. Judges have granted release in cases of advanced multiple sclerosis, late-stage Alzheimer’s disease, severe cognitive impairment, or other serious disabilities where an inmate’s health needs are beyond what the prison can humanely manage. The key is demonstrating that the condition is serious and irreversible (not a temporary injury) and that it essentially negates the person’s ability to function in the prison environment. If granted, the inmate is often released to a medical facility or into the care of family. Note that routine illnesses or conditions that are well-managed by prison medical staff (like controlled diabetes or hypertension) would not meet this high bar – it has to be something truly severe. Judges also consider whether the BOP is capable of providing adequate treatment; if the prison is adequately caring for the inmate, courts may be more hesitant. But if the condition is so serious that even with care the inmate’s quality of life is extremely poor or they’re suffering greatly, courts are more inclined to show mercy.
Elderly Inmates (Age-Related Reasons): Aging in prison is tough, and compassionate release can be a remedy for those who have grown old behind bars, particularly if they have served a substantial part of their sentence. Example: Robert Jones is 78 years old and has served 20 years of a 25-year sentence for a drug offense. In prison, he developed chronic heart failure, arthritis, and early-stage dementia. He now moves with a walker. He has a clean disciplinary record. He petitions for compassionate release due to his age and deteriorating health. In such a scenario, Robert fits the profile of an elderly prisoner who is no longer the person who was originally sentenced (in terms of risk and physical capability). The Sentencing Commission’s criteria (pre-2023) set a baseline of age 65+ with significant time served and declining health. Robert has served 80% of his sentence, which shows considerable punishment already served. The court would consider that keeping a feeble 78-year-old locked up might not be necessary for deterrence or public safety. If Robert has family willing to care for him outside or can go to a nursing facility, that strengthens his case. Compassionate release for elderly inmates essentially recognizes that at a certain point, continued incarceration of a very old, frail person becomes more punitive than necessary. However, age alone (e.g. “I’m 70 and I don’t like prison”) is not enough – it’s age plus some serious deterioration or special need. Also, if the person is elderly but committed a very serious offense (like a violent crime) and hasn’t served much of the sentence, a judge might still deny release because the punishment and public safety factors can outweigh the age factor. Each case is individualized.
Death or Incapacitation of Family Caregiver: Family-based compassionate release requests often involve a scenario like this: Maria Rodriguez is incarcerated, and her husband was caring for their two minor children. Tragically, her husband dies in a car accident. There is no other immediate family to care for the kids. Maria still has a couple of years left on her sentence for a fraud offense. She applies for compassionate release to take care of her children. Here, the extraordinary and compelling reason is the family catastrophe – her children have lost their caregiver and face being put into foster care or a precarious situation. The guidelines explicitly count the death or incapacitation of the caregiver of the inmate’s minor child as a basis for release. If Maria can show the court a plan for how she will care for her children and that she is fit to do so, and if her offense was nonviolent, the court may find that reuniting the family and allowing her to assume her parental responsibilities is compelling. Another common scenario is an inmate with an incapacitated spouse: e.g., an inmate’s spouse has a severe stroke and needs round-the-clock care, and the inmate is the only possible caregiver. Courts have granted release in those circumstances too, essentially on humanitarian grounds — the idea that the inmate’s family needs them desperately. It’s worth noting that courts will verify that truly no one else can fill the caregiver role; if, say, extended family or adult children could step in, that might weaken the claim that the inmate’s release is the only solution. Also, the timing and severity matter: if an inmate’s parent becomes slightly ill, that’s not enough; it usually must be a case of the loved one being completely unable to function without the inmate’s help (or, in the case of a deceased caregiver, literally no one to care for the dependent).
Severe Unforeseen Circumstances / Other Extraordinary Situations: This is a catch-all for unusual cases that don’t fit neatly in the above. One prominent recent example has been inmates seeking release due to drastic changes in sentencing laws (discussed earlier). For instance, Michael Thompson is serving a 35-year sentence for a drug offense, heavily enhanced by “stacked” gun charges under the old law. After the First Step Act, a person in his situation would likely get maybe 15 years today. He’s served 20 years already – more than what a modern sentence would be. Michael could argue that his continued incarceration is “extraordinary and compelling” because it’s grossly out of step with current law and fairness. Some courts have agreed and granted release in such scenarios, reasoning that while the change in law wasn’t made retroactive, the disparity is so large that justice warrants relief. However, as noted, not all courts accept this rationale, and the issue is contentious. With the Sentencing Commission now endorsing the possibility of relief in such cases (for “gross disparity”), we may see more uniformity. Other “other” reasons might include: an inmate being the victim of abuse or severe neglect in custody (for example, the 2023 guideline specifically lists inmates who have been sexually assaulted by staff as potentially qualifying); or an inmate who has made extraordinary rehabilitation (though rehabilitation alone isn’t enough, in combination with other factors it could support release, such as a young offender who after many years has dramatically changed and also faces a new hardship like a sick child). In rare instances, even catastrophic events at the prison could be cited (say a inmate is caught in a prison riot and badly injured or traumatized – not a common basis, but conceivably extraordinary). Essentially, this category is a safety valve for justice – it gives courts latitude to respond to unique human circumstances that weren’t anticipated by more rigid rules.
COVID-19 and Public Health Crises: Although we covered medical reasons, the COVID-19 pandemic deserves separate mention because it generated an unprecedented wave of compassionate release motions. In 2020 and 2021, thousands of federal inmates sought release due to the pandemic. The mere existence of COVID-19 in prisons was not enough for most courts; an inmate usually had to show a particular vulnerability (like a medical condition making COVID more dangerous for them – e.g., cancer, serious asthma, obesity, diabetes, etc.) and that the prison was unable to protect them. Example: During 2020, inmate Alex had severe asthma and the prison he was in experienced a massive COVID outbreak with multiple fatalities. He filed for compassionate release on the grounds that his health condition put him at grave risk. Many courts did grant release in scenarios like that, finding the risk of severe illness or death to be an extraordinary circumstance when combined with underlying conditions. Data from that period show a spike in grants: courts were willing to reduce sentences for vulnerable inmates, especially if they had already served a good portion of their term and had good conduct. However, as vaccines became available and prisons implemented better safety measures, courts became less inclined to grant COVID-based motions unless the health risk was truly exceptional (for example, if the inmate was severely immunocompromised and unable to be vaccinated or if new variants caused renewed dangers). By now (2025), COVID-specific motions have dwindled, but the pandemic set important precedents in compassionate release jurisprudence – it showed that public health emergencies can trigger compassionate release on a large scale, and it taught courts how to handle large numbers of these motions efficiently. It also shed light on how the BOP handles emergencies: recall that in early 2020 wardens denied 98% of requests and DOJ higher-ups even overturned most of the few approvals, so the only path for relief was through the courts.

Potential Obstacles and Reasons for Denial

While compassionate release offers a pathway to early freedom, it’s important to understand that most motions are denied. The process is highly discretionary and many applicants do not ultimately receive relief. Here are some common obstacles and reasons why a compassionate release motion might be denied:

Failure to Exhaust BOP Process: If an inmate doesn’t follow the required procedure (i.e., not asking the warden first or filing in court too early), the motion will be denied on procedural grounds. Courts strictly enforce the 30-day rule. So, skipping the warden request is a non-starter. Always ensure the administrative step is completed or 30 days have lapsed, otherwise the court will likely dismiss the motion without even reaching the merits.
Lack of “Extraordinary and Compelling” Reason: The most basic reason for denial is that the judge is not convinced that the inmate’s situation is extraordinary enough. Many inmates might feel they have compelling reasons – e.g., wanting to help an aging parent, or having a medical condition that is common (like well-managed hypertension) – but judges apply a high threshold. For instance, ordinary hardships of prison life or family separation do not qualify. Even moderate health issues that can be treated in prison will not meet the standard. Courts have denied many motions where the medical condition, while real, was not deemed severe enough (especially if the inmate is relatively young or if the condition is stable). For example, during COVID, if an inmate had only a minor condition or had already recovered from COVID, courts often said that did not rise to an extraordinary level – especially once vaccines were available. Similarly, if an inmate cites family needs but, say, there are others who can care for the family member, courts will find the situation not extraordinary. In short, not every sad or difficult situation is “extraordinary” – it generally has to be something very severe or unusual.
Insufficient Evidence: A motion can fail if the inmate doesn’t back up their claims with evidence. If you claim a medical issue, you need medical records or a doctor’s letter. If you claim a family emergency, you need proof (letters, death certificates, etc.). Judges are not likely to take an inmate’s word for it without documentation. Sometimes pro se inmates struggle to obtain and present all the needed evidence, which can hurt their chances. Courts have denied motions simply because the inmate didn’t provide medical records to substantiate the condition, or didn’t clearly articulate why their situation meets the criteria. This is why having counsel or someone savvy to help can be crucial – the presentation of the case matters.
Public Safety / Nature of the Offense: One major reason for denial is when the inmate’s crime or history is very serious and the court feels release would undermine public safety or proper punishment. For example, if an inmate is a violent offender (say, a repeat armed robber or someone who committed a serious assault), courts are extremely hesitant to grant release, even if that inmate has health problems. The concern for protecting the community can outweigh the inmate’s personal circumstances. A judge might say, “I acknowledge your medical condition is serious, but given the violent nature of your offense and your history, releasing you would pose a danger or minimize the gravity of your crime.” In cases of high notoriety or severity (terrorism, large-scale fraud that harmed many victims, etc.), courts often deny compassionate release because the need for deterrence and just punishment is still paramount. The statute does not exempt any crime from eligibility (even those convicted of violent or sexual crimes can technically apply), but in practice the bar is much higher to convince a judge in such cases.
Too Little Time Served / § 3553(a) Factors Disfavor Release: Courts frequently deny motions if they believe the inmate has not served enough of the sentence yet. For instance, someone with a 20-year sentence who has served 2 years will face an uphill battle, even if they have a serious condition, because letting them out so early might be seen as undermining the sentence’s deterrent effect. There have been cases where judges explicitly said denial was because the inmate hadn’t served a significant portion of the term. The longer an inmate has served (especially if it’s close to the majority of the sentence or the mandatory minimum, if any), the better their chances. The § 3553(a) factor of “just punishment” comes into play – judges ask, would releasing this person now result in a sentence that is significantly below what is fair given the crime? If yes, they will deny. Another 3553(a) factor is respect for law: in some cases, judges worry that granting too many early releases could create a perception that sentences are not being carried out, so they reserve it for truly extraordinary cases.
Rehabilitation Alone is Not Enough: As mentioned, you can be a “model prisoner,” but that by itself doesn’t qualify. Courts often acknowledge an inmate’s good conduct or self-improvement (and certainly it helps on the margins), but they will deny if that’s the only thing special about the case. Compassionate release is not meant to be a reward for good behavior – that’s what other mechanisms like good time credits or perhaps future parole (if it existed federally) would be for. So an inmate saying “I’ve taken many courses, found religion, and I’ve matured” – while commendable – usually won’t get relief unless coupled with a pressing circumstance like those discussed earlier.
Opposition from the Government: If prosecutors strongly oppose the motion, raising valid points (perhaps disputing medical claims or emphasizing victim impact or prior conduct), their arguments can sway a judge. Some U.S. Attorney’s Offices have policies to generally oppose compassionate release except in clear terminal cases. While a judge can certainly rule against the government, a well-argued opposition can highlight factors against release and give the judge confidence that denial is reasonable. In contrast, if the government doesn’t oppose or even supports the motion (which occasionally happens in compelling cases), it can almost be a green light for the judge. Thus, the stance of the DOJ can be an obstacle or an aid.
No Suitable Release Plan / Home Environment: If an inmate has nowhere to go or no way to receive care outside, a judge might be uneasy granting release. For example, if an inmate is terminal but has no family or hospice to go to, the court might wonder if releasing them would actually improve their situation (or would they end up homeless and without medical care?). This scenario is rare (usually some plan can be devised), but it highlights that you should present a concrete plan. Another angle: if an inmate is a risk, a judge may require home confinement or halfway house placement – if those aren’t available, it could be a reason to deny until a better plan is arranged.
Cases of Changed Law Where Courts Disagree: If an inmate’s sole argument is a non-retroactive change in law (like the stacked gun sentences or perhaps changes in drug laws or the elimination of a penalty that they got), some circuits (like the Sixth or Seventh as noted) might reject that argument on principle, following their precedents that courts should not use compassionate release to circumvent non-retroactivity. So depending on jurisdiction, the legal climate can itself be an obstacle. In one recent example, the Seventh Circuit in 2025 held that a change in the law (the anti-stacking provision) could not by itself justify compassionate release and that courts in their circuit shouldn’t defer to the Sentencing Commission’s contrary guidance. So an inmate in Illinois, for instance, might be denied for an argument that might have succeeded if they were sentenced in California. These legal nuances are beyond a layperson’s control, but they illustrate why outcomes can vary and why having a lawyer who knows the local precedent is valuable.

It’s worth emphasizing that denial doesn’t always mean never. If an inmate’s situation worsens or new evidence arises, they can try again (courts may consider subsequent motions if based on new extraordinary circumstances). But repeated motions without new grounds will be quickly denied. Statistically, a large majority of compassionate release motions are rejected – one analysis found only roughly 15–20% of motions have been granted in recent years, though grant rates spiked a bit during the height of COVID. Success can depend on the strength of the case and sometimes the luck of which judge hears it or which circuit’s law applies. It is truly an extraordinary remedy, so denials are the norm and approvals the exception.

Recent Trends, Statistics, and Reforms

Since the First Step Act’s passage in 2018, compassionate release has transformed from a seldom-used rarity to a regularly invoked form of relief. Here are some notable trends and statistics to put things in perspective:

Dramatic Increase in Applications: As noted, once inmates could file on their own, the number of motions surged. During fiscal year 2019 (the first partial year under the new law), hundreds of inmates applied; in fiscal year 2020, over 7,000 motions were filed in court(largely driven by COVID-19). In fiscal years 2021 and 2022, the trend continued with thousands of filings each year. The U.S. Sentencing Commission’s data reports show a spike in 2020 and 2021 corresponding to the pandemic, and while the volume has slightly declined after the pandemic’s peak, compassionate release remains far more common than pre-2018. For comparison, prior to the First Step Act, the BOP averaged around 24 compassionate release motions per year nationwide – a minuscule number. Now, it’s not unusual for federal defenders and courts to handle dozens of such motions each month.
Number of Grants: With more applications, naturally more releases have occurred. According to the U.S. Sentencing Commission and BOP figures, from the start of 2019 through early 2023, roughly 4,500–4,900 inmates were released via compassionate release. The Bureau of Prisons itself reported that as of mid-2023, 4,868 inmates’ requests had been approved (either by BOP or courts) under the First Step Act’s compassionate release provisions. This is a huge increase from the pre-FSA era, where only a handful of people got out each year through this mechanism. The burst of compassionate releases in 2020 (due to COVID) accounted for a large portion of this number – judges were proactively reducing sentences to save lives in the pandemic. For example, one report noted that by September 2020, judges (not wardens) had released over a thousand people due to COVID concerns when wardens would not.
Grant Rates: Even with more people getting relief, the majority of motions are denied, as mentioned. The grant rate in federal courts has varied by jurisdiction and year. During the early pandemic, some districts granted a fairly high percentage of motions (especially for nonviolent offenders with medical risks), whereas others were more conservative. The Sentencing Commission’s 2023 data indicated that overall, about 16% of compassionate release petitions were granted in FY 2024. This is actually an improvement over the near-zero rate when BOP was the sole decider, but it shows that roughly 4 out of 5 motions are not successful. Interestingly, there is variability among circuits: for instance, the Second Circuit (covering New York, etc.) had a higher grant rate (one report said around 48% of motions in that circuit were granted at one point), whereas some others like the Fifth or Eleventh were much lower. These differences reflect differing judicial philosophies and possibly differing profiles of defendants. The Sentencing Commission’s reports also break down reasons cited for grants and denials. Predominant reasons for grants have been medical conditions (especially during COVID) and risks related to COVID, followed by other factors like age and family circumstances. Reasons for denial frequently cite lack of extraordinary reasons or §3553(a) factors.
Sentencing Commission’s 2023 Amendments: A major recent development was the Sentencing Commission’s vote in April 2023 to update and expand the compassionate release policy guidelines. This was the first substantial revision in years, made possible after the Commission regained a quorum of commissioners. The new policy (effective November 1, 2023) did a few key things: (1) It acknowledged the reality of inmate-filed motions and affirmed that courts can determine extraordinary reasons – basically aligning the guidelines with the First Step Act. (2) It expanded the list of specific extraordinary and compelling reasons to include new categories such as being a victim of sexual assault or other serious abuse in prison, being in a situation where an inmate is suffering from some of the harsh “stacked” sentences or legacy sentencing practices that create gross disparities, and even consideration of inmates who were under 18 at the time of the offense (youthful offender considerations). (3) It clarified some definitions (for example, clarifying what “incapacitation” of a caregiver means, or that an inmate who presents some other compelling circumstance can be considered even if not in the old list). These changes were seen as making compassionate release more accessible and uniform. Advocacy groups like FAMM praised the moves, stating the Commission “rightly recognized” that people in scenarios like abuse by guards or excessive sentences should have a chance at relief. However, there was some dissent within the Commission on allowing changes in law to count; a few commissioners felt that was beyond the Commission’s authority since Congress hadn’t made those retroactive. Nonetheless, the amendments went through. Over time, these new guidelines should help courts by providing a broader, yet more defined, framework – possibly leading to more grants in deserving cases and more consistency in decisions.
Use of Compassionate Release Beyond COVID: Now that the initial rush of COVID-related cases has subsided, compassionate release remains an important tool primarily for cases of medical illness, elderly prisoners, and family hardships. Defense attorneys are increasingly aware of it. Judges too have become more familiar with evaluating these motions. In the early days (2019-2020), there was some uncertainty and inconsistent rulings, but as case law developed, most courts have settled into a more consistent approach. We’ve also seen some high-profile cases: for example, some white-collar offenders in their 70s with health issues have been released early; some individuals convicted of drug offenses in the 1990s who got extremely long sentences have been freed due to changes in sentencing attitudes. The Justice Department under different administrations has taken varying stances (at times instructing prosecutors to concede in meritorious cases, etc.).
Statistics on Demographics: The Sentencing Commission’s reports show that compassionate release applicants and recipients span a range of offenses, but a large chunk are drug offenders (since they make up a big portion of the prison population). For instance, in FY2023, of those who were granted release, a significant percentage were people originally sentenced for drug trafficking, as well as some for fraud, firearms, and other crimes. People convicted of more serious crimes like murder or sex offenses have a much lower success rate – they apply, but grants are infrequent. The average age of those granted release tends to be in the 50s or 60s, reflecting that many are older or ill. Many have served a decade or more. These trends underline that compassionate release is mainly benefiting those who are older, sicker, or who have been in prison a long time, rather than young, healthy inmates (which is in line with its intended purpose).

In summary, compassionate release in the federal system has evolved into an essential, if sparingly applied, safety valve in the justice system. It started as a tightly controlled BOP program that was criticized for underuse. The First Step Act democratized it by giving prisoners a voice in court. The COVID-19 crisis then stress-tested the system and forced rapid developments in the law. Now, with updated guidelines and growing precedent, compassionate release is on more solid footing. It remains difficult to obtain, but no longer virtually impossible as it once was. Judges have shown an increased willingness to grant relief in truly deserving cases – saving lives and reuniting families when the circumstances warrant compassion without sacrificing public safety or the integrity of sentences. The data and reforms suggest a trend toward a more humane application of the law, while still respecting that it’s an extraordinary remedy.

Example Scenarios Illustrating Compassionate Release

To tie everything together, here are a few hypothetical scenarios that illustrate when compassionate release might be granted, versus when it might be denied. These examples combine elements discussed above:

Example 1 – Granted (Medical): Frank is a 68-year-old inmate serving a 15-year sentence for a nonviolent fraud. He has served 12 years with good conduct. Frank was diagnosed with terminal liver cancer, with a prognosis of 6 months to live. He’s in constant pain and requires hospice-level care. He uses a wheelchair and cannot perform daily activities alone. Frank submits a request to the warden, waits 30 days, then files a motion with medical documentation of his condition and a plan to live with his daughter (who has arranged hospice care at her home). Outcome: A judge finds extraordinary and compelling reasons – Frank is terminally ill. The warden had denied his request (perhaps citing the serious nature of his crime), but the judge looks at §3553(a) factors: Frank has served most of his sentence, has no prior record, and at this point keeping him in prison serves little purpose. He’s not a danger due to his condition. The judge grants compassionate release, reducing his sentence to time served so he can spend his final months with family. Frank is released under supervision, with a special condition that he remain on home confinement/hospice care.
Example 2 – Granted (Family): Susan is a 40-year-old single mother of two young children. She is serving a 5-year sentence for a first-time drug offense and has 1 year left. Her children were staying with her own mother (the children’s grandmother) while she’s in prison. Tragically, the grandmother suffers a massive stroke and is incapacitated, unable to speak or care for the kids. There is no other family available to care for the children, who are 10 and 8 years old. After learning this, Susan files a compassionate release request, attaching hospital records about her mother’s condition and letters from child services indicating the children will be placed in foster care if no one can care for them. She shows a plan: if released, she’ll live with a supportive friend and take full custody of the kids. Outcome: The court sees that Susan’s situation fits the guideline of “family circumstances” – the incapacitation of the only caregiver for her minor children. This is a classic extraordinary reason. Susan’s institutional record is good (no infractions, she took parenting classes in prison, etc.). The crime was nonviolent. Under §3553(a), the main question is whether one year early release is justified. Considering the welfare of the children and that Susan has been rehabilitated, the judge decides the need to care for the children is compelling. The motion is granted. Susan is released to take care of her kids, with the remainder of her sentence served on supervised release (and perhaps with conditions like drug testing to ensure she stays on track).
Example 3 – Granted (Combination of Factors): David is 66 years old and in prison for a bank robbery committed 30 years ago. He received a very long sentence under a “three strikes” law (life in prison). He has served 30 years with a perfect conduct record. Over the last decade, David has become a model inmate – mentoring younger prisoners, obtaining an education, and showing remorse. Now he has serious health issues: diabetes, hypertension, and recently underwent triple bypass surgery. He’s on multiple medications and has mobility issues. If sentenced for the same crime today, due to changes in law, David likely would not have received life in prison. He files for compassionate release, citing his advanced age, health problems, and the disparity between his life sentence and what a modern sentence would be. Outcome: This scenario touches on several grounds: age, health, and changes in law (his life term vs. a lesser term today). A judge might find that collectively these constitute extraordinary and compelling reasons – basically, that keeping David imprisoned for life is no longer necessary or fair. The judge weighs the factors: The crime was violent (robbery), but it was 30 years ago; David was in his 30s then and is now a senior citizen. His disciplinary-free record and rehabilitation suggest he’s not a danger. The health issues add compassion because prison is hard for him physically. The disparity in sentence (life vs maybe 20 years if sentenced now) is also striking. After careful consideration (and perhaps noting the Sentencing Commission’s new policy that allows considering such disparities), the judge could grant release. David would be released after 30 years in custody – essentially deeming that as sufficient punishment – and put on supervised release. This example is akin to some real cases where elderly prisoners with decades served were freed, particularly when laws changed (like the reduced severity for “three strikes” or the elimination of parole resulted in unexpectedly harsh outcomes).
Example 4 – Denied (Insufficient Grounds): Mike is a 50-year-old inmate with 2 years completed out of a 10-year sentence for a methamphetamine distribution. He has high blood pressure and high cholesterol, which are managed with medication in prison. He is worried about COVID-19, although he is vaccinated and there are currently no outbreaks at his facility. Mike’s parents are in their 70s and have some health issues, and he would like to be out to help them, but they are managing with other family support. He files a compassionate release motion saying he’s scared of getting sick and that his parents could use his help. Outcome: The court would likely deny this motion. Mike’s health issues (hypertension, etc.) are common and controlled – not extraordinary. The COVID risk for him, at this time, is not severe given vaccines and lack of outbreak, so that argument is weak. His desire to help his older parents is understandable, but it doesn’t rise to the level of “only available caregiver” or an urgent crisis – they have other support. Also, he’s only served 2 out of 10 years; releasing him now would greatly undercut the punishment for a serious drug offense. The §3553(a) factors (seriousness, deterrence) and the fact that he’s not in dire circumstances all point to denial. A judge would likely write that Mike’s reasons are not extraordinary and compelling and that even if they were, the amount of sentence remaining and the nature of the offense counsel against early release. Mike would remain in prison, possibly advised by the court that he can try again if circumstances significantly change (e.g., if he developed a severe illness).
Example 5 – Denied (Public Safety Concerns): Alex is 45 and serving a 20-year sentence for an armed bank robbery. He has 5 years left. He suffered a serious injury in prison – he lost a leg in an accident – and now uses a prosthetic. He claims this disability is an extraordinary reason for release. He has a mixed prison record with a couple of fights a decade ago but no issues in recent years. He has family support outside. He files for compassionate release. Outcome: This one is tougher – Alex does have a significant change (loss of limb), but is it compelling enough? Some judges might say a disability like that, while unfortunate, can be accommodated in prison (the BOP does have medical facilities). If Alex can still function (with a prosthetic) and isn’t terminal or fully incapacitated, the court may not see his situation as extraordinary. Additionally, the nature of his offense was violent (armed robbery), and he still has a quarter of his sentence to go. The judge might worry about public safety given the violence in his past (even though he’s somewhat disabled, it doesn’t guarantee no danger). The prior fights in prison could be cited as concerns about behavior (even if they were years ago). Balancing it all, the judge could decide that while Alex’s injury is significant, it doesn’t justify cutting 5 years off a violent offender’s sentence. The motion would be denied, perhaps with the suggestion that if his health worsens or when he has less time remaining, it could be revisited.

These scenarios illustrate the spectrum: from clear-cut compassionate cases (terminal illness, caregiver death) to borderline cases (age+health+long served) to weak cases (minor health issues, short time served). The outcome always depends on the totality of circumstances and the judge’s assessment.

Compassionate release in federal court is ultimately about balance – balancing compassion for human circumstances against the needs of public safety and justice. The law, especially after the First Step Act, recognizes that rigid sentences should sometimes yield to mercy when circumstances change in extraordinary ways. It provides a legal avenue for inmates to petition the court for leniency due to severe hardships like terminal illness, debilitating conditions, or urgent family needs. The process requires navigating BOP procedures and convincing a judge with strong evidence and legal arguments. While it is no easy feat to obtain compassionate release (the majority of requests are denied), it has offered a “second chance” or a measure of relief to many inmates who genuinely needed it – from dying prisoners allowed to pass away at home, to elderly prisoners no longer a threat, to inmates reunited with children who had no other caregiver.

If you are considering seeking compassionate release for yourself or a loved one, keep in mind the key takeaways from this guide: know the criteria (extraordinary and compelling reasons and examples), follow the required steps (warden request and timing), prepare solid evidence and a plan, and if possible, get legal assistance to present the case effectively. Courts approach these motions with care and skepticism – you often get only one good shot at it, so it must be done right. But when successful, compassionate release serves as a powerful reminder that our justice system, while firm, is not unfeeling; it has room for empathy and flexibility in the face of human vulnerability and change. Always weigh the decision carefully and ensure that the safety of the community is not compromised – that’s what judges will do. With thorough preparation and truly compelling reasons, compassionate release can transform a life sentence into an opportunity for dignity, family reunification, or simply a chance to live one’s final days in peace. It is, in essence, a convergence of law and humanity, living up to its name: compassionate release.

Compassionate Release Pricing & Financing

We believe in transparent, upfront pricing so you know exactly what to expect. Compassionate release motions can vary in complexity depending on the inmate’s circumstances, available medical documentation, and whether the court schedules a hearing.

Here is our typical pricing structure:

Written Motion (most common): $5,000
Virtual Hearing Appearance (if required): + $5,000
In-Person Court Hearing: $7,500 + travel expenses

⚖️ In many cases, judges decide compassionate release motions on the written filings alone, which means the matter is resolved at the $5,000 level without the need for additional costs.

Every case includes a thorough review of medical records, assistance with gathering supporting documentation, drafting a detailed motion tailored to your circumstances, and filing in the correct federal court. If a hearing is required, our attorneys will appear in court to argue on your behalf.

Legal Financing Available

We understand that families often face financial stress during these situations. That’s why we offer flexible payment options through Pay Later by Affirm—allowing you to spread payments over 3, 6, 12, or 24 months. This means you can focus on what matters most without delay.

Why Choose National Security Law Firm for Compassionate Release Cases

At National Security Law Firm, we know that a compassionate release motion is often one of the most important legal battles of a person’s life. The stakes are high: freedom, dignity, family reunification, and sometimes even the chance to live out your final days outside prison walls. These cases demand precision, strategy, and credibility before the court.

What sets us apart:

Elite Legal Team: Our attorneys include former federal prosecutors, U.S. attorneys, and defense counsel with decades of courtroom experience.
Insider Advantage: We’ve worked within the federal system, which means we understand how the Bureau of Prisons, prosecutors, and judges think and decide these motions.
Proven Track Record: We fight tirelessly to secure the strongest outcome possible—whether that means building a medical record, developing a robust release plan, or persuasively presenting your extraordinary and compelling reasons.
Nationwide Representation: No matter where you or your loved one are incarcerated, we can represent you in federal court.
Client-Centered Approach: We know every case is different. We develop individualized strategies and treat every client’s liberty with the urgency it deserves.

Our mission is simple but powerful: to maximize the chances of success and give every client hope when it matters most.

Ready to Take the Next Step?

If you or a loved one are considering compassionate release, don’t face this uphill battle alone. Let our experienced compassionate release act lawyers evaluate your case and guide you through the process from start to finish.

💻 Book a free consultation now: Schedule Your Consultation

National Security Law Firm: It’s Our Turn to Fight for You.

Need More Strategies to Beat Federal Charges?

If you or a loved one is facing a federal investigation or indictment, don’t stop here—this is just the beginning. At National Security Law Firm, we’ve built the most comprehensive federal defense library on the internet:

💰 Transparent Pricing – Know what federal representation really costs before you hire.
⚔️ Defense Playbooks – Step-by-step strategies on how to get federal charges dismissed, reduced, or beaten at trial.
🕵️ Charge-Specific Guides – From wire fraud to drug conspiracy, see exactly how prosecutors build cases—and how we tear them down.
📅 Procedural Roadmaps – Learn what to expect at every stage: indictments, bail hearings, sentencing, probation, and appeals.

👉 Explore our complete Federal Criminal Defense Hub here:
Nationwide Federal Criminal Defense Lawyers – NSLF

This library is designed to give you clarity, confidence, and a head start in the fight of your life.