US Sentencing Comission: Biggest Change Since Booker

By: Ronald W. Chapman II

The U.S. Sentencing Commission has published its proposed amendments to the federal sentencing guidelines for 2025. These changes address significant areas of supervised release, drug offenses, and revocation policies.

Supervised Release: A Shift Toward Individualized Assessments

One of the most notable changes proposed in the amendments is the increased discretion given to courts in determining supervised release terms. Under the new framework, judges will no longer be required to impose a term of supervised release simply because a defendant has received a sentence exceeding one year of imprisonment. Instead, the decision to impose supervised release must be based on an individualized assessment of whether supervision is necessary for rehabilitation and public safety.

Click to Explore

Key Modifications:

• Courts will only be required to impose supervised release when mandated by statute.

• Judges must justify their reasoning on the record when imposing or declining to impose supervised release.

• The guidelines no longer recommend a presumptive term of supervised release for sex offenses, replacing it with a requirement that courts assess the need for lifetime supervision on a case-by-case basis.

• Conditions of supervised release will also be determined through individualized assessments, replacing the prior "standard" conditions with a list of suggested conditions.

Drug Offenses: Addressing Sentencing Disparities

The proposed amendments continue the Commission’s efforts to address sentencing disparities in drug-related offenses. Specifically, the changes aim to:

• Reduce disparities in sentencing for drug offenders who qualify under the "safety valve" provision, allowing more defendants to avoid mandatory minimum sentences.

• Revise the treatment of recidivist drug offenders, ensuring that prior convictions used to enhance sentences are more narrowly defined.

• Allow greater sentencing leniency for defendants who provide substantial assistance to law enforcement in drug-related cases.

These changes align with legislative efforts to address the impact of harsh sentencing on low-level drug offenders and could significantly affect plea negotiations for defendants facing controlled substance charges.

Revocation of Supervised Release: A More Flexible Approach

The proposed amendments introduce a major restructuring of the guidelines governing revocation of supervised release. The revisions aim to provide courts with greater flexibility when responding to violations, recognizing that not all violations warrant revocation and imprisonment.

Key Changes:

• Creation of a new “Grade D” violation category for technical violations, allowing courts to respond with alternatives to incarceration.

• Courts are encouraged to consider alternatives to revocation, such as modifying conditions of supervised release, extending supervision, or imposing graduated sanctions.

• The guidelines eliminate the mandatory recommendation that supervised release terms run consecutively to any new sentence, allowing courts to determine whether a concurrent sentence is appropriate.

• Encouragement for courts to consider early termination of supervised release after one year if the defendant demonstrates compliance and low risk.

Implications for Sentencing Advocacy

The increased judicial discretion in supervised release decisions means that defense attorneys must be prepared to advocate more persuasively for their clients. Attorneys should:

• Prepare compelling arguments regarding why supervised release may not be necessary in a particular case.

• Argue for shorter supervised release terms where applicable.

• Highlight a defendant’s rehabilitation efforts when advocating for early termination.

• Take advantage of the expanded eligibility for safety valve relief in drug cases.