What SCOTUS’s First Step Act rulings mean for criminal justice reform
Plus: Dems express outrage that Pam Bondi’s Epstein files interview won’t be videotaped, band together to halt Trump’s ballroom project, and ask for an independent analysis of the war in Iran’s cost.
First Things First
👋🏾 Hi, hey, hello! Thank you for starting your day with Congress Nerd Sunrise.
The Supreme Court handed criminal justice reform advocates a pair of setbacks on Thursday, ruling in two cases that limit how federal prisoners can seek sentence reductions under the bipartisan First Step Act and prompting a sharp rebuke from Senate Judiciary Committee Ranking Member Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), one of the law’s chief architects.
In an 8-1 decision in Fernandez v. United States, the Court held that federal inmates cannot use the First Step Act’s compassionate-release provision to challenge the validity of their convictions. The majority concluded that such claims must instead proceed through the traditional habeas corpus process.
The Court also ruled 6-3 in Rutherford v. United States that prisoners serving so-called “stacked” sentences imposed before the First Step Act’s enactment cannot automatically seek sentence reductions based solely on Congress’s later decision to change the law.
The tandem rulings narrowed the pathways available to incarcerated people seeking relief under one of the most consequential criminal justice reform laws enacted in decades, a bipartisan measure that expanded compassionate release, reduced some mandatory minimum penalties and made portions of the Fair Sentencing Act retroactive.
“The Supreme Court just significantly weakened a landmark, bipartisan criminal justice reform law in defiance of Congressional intent,” Durbin said in a statement, adding that lawmakers would explore legislative options to preserve what he described as the law’s original purpose.
The decisions mark a notable victory for a more restrictive reading of the statute. But Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, who dissented in both cases, argued the majority interpreted the law too narrowly and failed to give full effect to Congress’s effort to expand judicial discretion when considering requests for relief.
The First Step Act, signed into law by former President Donald Trump in 2018 after years of bipartisan negotiations led by Durbin, Sen. Cory Booker (D-N.J.), Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) and Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah), has become a centerpiece of the federal government’s “smart on crime” reform efforts. Supporters point to thousands of sentence reductions and compassionate-release grants, as well as recidivism rates among participants that are significantly lower than the federal prison system as a whole.
Durbin’s pledge to pursue legislative fixes suggests the Court’s rulings may reopen a debate many lawmakers thought Congress had settled eight years ago about how much authority federal judges should have to revisit lengthy prison sentences after they have been imposed.
Programming note: Today’s edition is the final Congress Nerd Sunrise before the newsletter goes on hiatus for the summer beginning in June.
Once Upon a Hill isn’t slowing down. Paid subscribers will continue receiving five editions each week: Congress Nerd Sunday, a new weekly look-ahead at the biggest legislative and political storylines shaping Washington for the upcoming week, plus Congress Nerd Daily on Monday through Thursday evenings with the reporting, analysis and Capitol Hill intelligence they’ve come to expect from Sunset.
If you’re on the free list, you’ll receive Monday and Wednesday editions of Congress Nerd Daily.
The shift will allow me to spend more time on deeply sourced enterprise reporting, ambitious features outside the daily news cycle and expanded coverage of the summer campaign season as Congress barrels toward another high-stakes stretch on appropriations, reconciliation, surveillance powers and the 2026 midterms.
Sunrise has been a meaningful part of Once Upon a Hill’s growth and evolution over the past year, and I’m grateful to everyone who made it part of their morning routine. My goal with this next chapter is simple: fewer production demands, more reporting muscle and an even stronger Congress Nerd for the months ahead.
As always, thank you for reading and supporting independent congressional journalism.
📬 Send me tips, scoops or just say hi: michael@onceuponahill.com.
What Paid Subscribers are Reading
In last evening’s Congress Nerd Sunset, I reported on a federal judge’s decision not to immediately block President Trump’s executive order targeting voting by mail and citizenship verification, and why Democrats see the ruling as part of a broader battle over election rules ahead of the midterms. The story also explores growing frustration among some Democratic strategists who worry the party is treating voting-rights fights as legal disputes rather than political ones, even as leaders like House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-N.Y.) and Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) ramp up election-protection efforts. Still on the free plan? Upgrade your subscription for full access to this report and all future editions of Sunset.
Happenings
The House will meet at 12 p.m. in a pro forma session.
The Senate is out.
President Trump will receive his intelligence briefing at 11 a.m. and participate in a policy meeting at 1:3o p.m. He will sign executive orders at 3:30 p.m. before another policy meeting at 4:30 p.m.
In the Know
— Inflation accelerated again in April, with the Federal Reserve’s preferred inflation gauge rising 3.8% from a year earlier while core inflation climbed 3.3%, complicating hopes for near-term interest-rate cuts. The report also showed consumers are increasingly relying on savings to sustain spending, with the personal saving rate falling to 2.6%, its lowest level in roughly four years.
— House Democrats escalated their criticism of the Trump administration’s handling of the Epstein files after the Justice Department confirmed that former Attorney General Pam Bondi’s transcribed interview before the House Oversight Committee later this morning will not be videotaped. Democrats argue the decision shields Bondi from public scrutiny over what they describe as the administration’s mishandling of the files, while Republicans have shown little appetite for extending an investigation that has become a political headache for the White House.
— Senate Democrats urged the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office to produce its own estimate of the cost of President Trump’s war in Iran, arguing that Pentagon figures have been inconsistent and may significantly understate the conflict’s true price tag. Led by Senate Budget Committee Ranking Member Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.), Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) and Chuck Schumer, the lawmakers say an independent analysis is needed as the administration reportedly prepares to seek up to $200 billion in additional war funding on top of its proposed $1.5 trillion defense budget.
— More than 150 congressional Democrats joined a legal effort to block President Trump’s planned White House ballroom, arguing in a newly filed amicus brief that the administration cannot move forward with demolishing and rebuilding the East Wing without congressional approval. The filing comes after Senate Democrats successfully challenged a proposed $1 billion reconciliation provision tied to security upgrades for Trump’s planned White House ballroom, though broader questions about future federal funding for the project remain unresolved.