This educational guide is based on the linked primary sources. It is not a Court publication, is not affiliated with the Court, and is not legal advice.
In brief
Overview
Carlos Concepción was convicted in 2007 of distributing five or more grams of crack cocaine and was sentenced to 19 years (228 months) in prison.
The Supreme Court held that the First Step Act permits district courts to consider intervening changes of law or fact when reducing a sentence.
The Court also held that the First Step Act does not override the long‑standing practice that district courts have broad discretion in sentencing.
Background and question before the Court
Carlos Concepción pleaded guilty to distributing five or more grams of crack cocaine and received a 19‑year sentence.
According to Petitioner, Concepción sought a sentence reduction under Section 404 of the First Step Act, which authorizes a limited reduction proceeding based on the Fair Sentencing Act’s changes to crack‑cocaine sentencing.
The legal question was whether the First Step Act allows district courts to consider intervening changes of law or fact when exercising their discretion to reduce a sentence.
What each side argues
Government
The Government contended that Section 404(b) requires a counterfactual analysis of what the statutory and guideline range would have been if the Fair Sentencing Act had been in effect at the time of the original sentencing.
Petitioner (Carlos Concepción)
According to Petitioner, Concepción’s brief asserted that Section 404 of the First Step Act authorizes only a limited sentence‑reduction proceeding, not a full resentencing, and that the term “impose” does not require a new § 3553(a) analysis.
Petitioner’s Counsel (Charles L. McCloud)
According to Charles L. McCloud, counsel argued that lower courts are barred from considering intervening law and facts, a view that conflicts with the text of the First Step Act.
What happened at oral argument
Chief Justice Roberts asked what the “may” argument meant.
Justice Kavanaugh asked whether district courts are required to consider changes in the law, or merely may do so.
According to Justice Thomas, justice Thomas questioned whether the petitioner's reliance on the statutory language forecloses other considerations.
Justice Gorsuch asked why some district courts would consider changes in the law while others would not, leading to disparate results.
Justice Kagan was asked about an analogous proceeding under Rule 35.
According to Chief Justice Roberts, chief Justice Roberts questioned why the Court should not simply fix the one problem rather than create a broader rule.
- [1] 1562e6c998abb817c0b7-r1-0493778531f49b04.pdf, p. 8
- [2] 1562e6c998abb817c0b7-r1-0493778531f49b04.pdf, p. 63
- [3] 1562e6c998abb817c0b7-r1-0493778531f49b04.pdf, p. 45
- [4] 1562e6c998abb817c0b7-r1-0493778531f49b04.pdf, p. 46
- [5] 1562e6c998abb817c0b7-r1-0493778531f49b04.pdf, p. 65
- [6] 1562e6c998abb817c0b7-r1-0493778531f49b04.pdf, p. 87
- [7] 1562e6c998abb817c0b7-r1-0493778531f49b04.pdf, p. 87
What the Court decided
The Court held that the First Step Act does not contravene the well‑established sentencing practice that gives district courts broad discretion.
The Court held that the First Step Act allows district courts to consider intervening changes of law or fact when exercising discretion to reduce a sentence.
Why it matters
The decision clarifies that district courts may consider intervening changes of law or fact, such as the Fair Sentencing Act, when exercising discretion to reduce a sentence under the First Step Act.
Terms to know
No glossary terms are available for this guide.
Primary sources
Read the source materials on the official site or open the immutable repository copy used for this guide.
- 1562e6c998abb817c0b7-r1-0493778531f49b04.pdforal argument transcript
- 74e4fbc870b765ae9c7b-r1-01c2a82ed903373e.pdfopinion
Guide generated September 28, 2026. Automated validation accepted this version.