Supreme Court hears challenge over use of retribution in supervised‑release proceedings

The Supreme Court heard argument in Esteris v. United States (No. 237483) over whether federal law bars judges from considering retribution when they revoke, modify or extend supervised release. Petitioner’s counsel argued that 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e) lists the only permissible purposes and that Congress intentionally omitted the retributive purpose set out in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(2)(A). Government counsel urged a narrower reading, saying § 3583(e) requires consideration of the listed factors but does not forbid courts from taking other considerations into account.

The dispute turns on how to read the Sentencing Reform Act’s parallel provisions and on how appellate courts should review district‑court factfinding. Petitioner’s counsel argued that Congress was “surgical” in removing the retributive factor from the supervised‑release provisions and relied on the negative‑implication canon and this court’s precedents to say that omission excludes the retributive purpose. As petitioner put it during argument, “Congress thereby precluded courts from considering a 2 a’s retributive…