# Compassionate Release and COVID-19: Analyzing Inconsistent Applications of the First Step Act by Federal Courts

## TL;DR

The paper examines how federal courts inconsistently applied compassionate release during the pandemic, leading to unequal outcomes for incarcerated individuals.

## Contribution

It highlights the inconsistent judicial interpretation of compassionate release factors under the First Step Act during the pandemic.

## Key findings

- Judges inconsistently considered vaccination status and reinfection in compassionate release decisions.
- The 'degree' of extraordinary circumstances was interpreted differently across federal districts.
- Inconsistent applications led to inequitable access to early release for incarcerated individuals.

## Abstract

The COVID-19 pandemic has posed a significant health threat to people in corrections facilities due to communal living, inability to social distance, and high rates of comorbidity among incarcerated populations. Combined with the First Step Act of 2018, which granted incarcerated individuals seeking compassionate release access to the courts, the pandemic increased the number of people in federal prisons petitioning for early release due to health risk. Analysis of federal compassionate release case law throughout the pandemic reveals inconsistent judicial reasoning related to COVID-19-based requests. Inconsistently interpreted compassionate release factors include vaccination status, COVID-19 reinfection, and the “degree” of extraordinary circumstances considered. Varied application among federal districts produced inequitable access to compassionate release. Therefore, this analysis provides insight into how an unclear policy can create disparate public health outcomes and considerations for compassionate release determinations in future times of uncertainty, such as a pandemic.