The United States Sentencing Commission held a hearing to consider whether four recent amendments to the federal sentencing guidelines should be applied retroactively, drawing sharply divided testimony from the Department of Justice, federal defenders, advisory groups and the judiciary.

The question before the commission was whether people already serving sentences should be allowed to seek reductions under (1) a clarified "physically restrained" enhancement, (2) an "intervening arrest" clarification affecting criminal-history calculations, (3) an increased mitigating-role cap in drug cases, and (4) a new special instruction expanding how courts evaluate mitigating role under U.S. Sentencing Guidelines §3B1.2.

Why it matters: retroactivity can shorten prison terms for eligible people, reduce Bureau of Prisons (BOP) population pressure and address perceived past unfairness. Opponents warned retroactive application would trigger large volumes of court filings, require fact-finding in old cases, and disrupt victims' sense of finality.

Most senior Department of Justice witness Megan A. Healy, appellate chief for the U.S. Attorney’s Office in the District of North Dakota, told the commission the department "respectfully opposes the retroactive application of each amendment," citing public safety, finality of sentences and the burden on courts, probation officers and litigants. Healy said retroactivity often requires new fact-finding in old cases and predicted that filings would exceed the pool of clearly eligible people.

By contrast, Elizabeth Blackwood, national sentencing resource counsel for the federal public and community defenders, urged retroactivity for all four amendments and emphasized the drug amendments. "Retroactivity would take a significant step towards alleviating the damage caused by this unfair system by lowering overly punitive sentences in low-level drug cases and by reducing the prison population," Blackwood said, arguing the mitigating-role cap is administrable and the special-instruction change — though harder to apply retroactively — is manageable with existing retroactivity procedures.

Advisory groups offered mixed advice. Susan Walsh of the Practitioners Advisory Group argued for presumptive retroactivity going forward and urged the commission to favor correcting past unfairness over administrative convenience. By contrast, Laura Roffa, speaking for the Probation Officers Advisory Group, opposed retroactive application of the physically restrained and intervening-arrest clarifications and warned that both could require extensive record reviews and victim recontact in some cases. Jamie Johnson of the Tribal Issues Advisory Group supported retroactivity for the mitigating-role cap and the physically restrained clarification, noting the latter had produced different results in circuits that affect Indian country prosecutions.

Victims’ representatives urged caution. Christopher Quasbod, chair of the Victims Advisory Group, said the physically restrained clarification in particular carries "victim trauma" risks and asked the commission to "decline retroactive application" for that amendment, citing the potential number of victims and the harms of reopening sentences.

Judge Edmund Chang, chair of the Judicial Conference Criminal Law Committee, reiterated the committee’s longstanding preference that guideline amendments generally be prospective-only and said retroactivity should be reserved for amendments that correct "fundamental unfairness or inequity" (for example, prior crack-cocaine reforms). Chang signaled particular concern about the special instruction expanding mitigating-role review because it could produce an unbounded number of filings: the commission's analyses show many drug-trafficking sentences did not include a mitigating-role reduction historically.

Key numeric and procedural points raised during the hearing:
- The commission’s data estimate that about 650 people might be eligible for relief under the mitigating-role cap amendment; witnesses stressed that number could expand because many will file motions even if ineligible. (Blackwood; multiple advisory witnesses)
- The commission estimated roughly 1,000 cases could be affected by the physically restrained clarification; victims’ advocates said there may be many victims per case. (Victims Advisory Group)
- The Criminal Law Committee and several probation witnesses cited prior retroactivity events in which large shares of motions were ineligible (examples cited: roughly 69.9% and 78.5% in past criminal-history retroactivity filings), increasing workload without commensurate reductions. (Judge Edmund Chang)
- BOP capacity and 28 U.S.C. § 994(g) were invoked by defenders and other witnesses as relevant statutory considerations favoring retroactivity to reduce overcrowding and promote public-safety objectives.

How the positions break down:
- Oppose retroactivity (full or for certain amendments): Department of Justice (Megan A. Healy), Probation Officers Advisory Group (Laura Roffa), Victims Advisory Group (Christopher Quasbod), Criminal Law Committee (Judge Edmund Chang) — primary reasons: administrative burden, fact-finding on old records, victims’ trauma, and preservation of finality.
- Support retroactivity (all or for specific amendments): Federal defenders (Elizabeth Blackwood), Practitioners Advisory Group (Susan Walsh), Tribal Issues Advisory Group (Jamie Johnson) — primary reasons: correcting past unfairness in drug sentencing, administrability for the mitigating-role cap, BOP population relief and geographic fairness where circuit splits produced disparities.

No formal retroactivity vote occurred during the hearing and the commission’s public comment period remained open at adjournment. Commissioners and panelists repeatedly asked whether delayed implementation (a reasonable effective date after a retroactivity vote) could mitigate administrative strain; DOJ said it would ask for an implementation delay if retroactivity were adopted.

What’s next: the commission will consider the written record and the hearing testimony as it follows its established procedures for deciding whether any of these amendments should be made retroactive under U.S. Sentencing Guidelines §1B1.10. The commission has not announced a timetable for a decision.