Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/21pdf/20-1650_3dq3.pdf
Page Number: 22.0

Cite as:  597 U. S. ____ (2022) 

17 

Opinion of the Court 

It  is  well  established  that  a  district  court  must  generally 
consider the parties’ nonfrivolous arguments before it.  See 
Golan v. Saada, 596 U. S. ___, ___ (2022) (slip op., at 11).
Of course, a district court is not required to be persuaded 
by every argument parties make, and it may, in its discre-
tion,  dismiss  arguments  that  it  does  not  find  compelling 
without a detailed explanation.  Nor is a district court re-
quired to articulate anything more than a brief statement 
of  reasons.  See  Rita  v.  United  States,  551  U. S.  338,  356 
(2007).  Nothing  in  the  First  Step  Act  contravenes  those 
background principles.

When  it  comes  to  that  reasoned  explanation,  the  First
Step Act “ ‘leaves much . . . to the judge’s own professional 
judgment.’ ”  Chavez-Meza v. United States, 585 U. S. ___, 
___ (2018) (slip op., at 3) (quoting Rita, 551 U. S., at 356).
The First Step Act does not “require courts to expressly re-
but each argument” made by the parties.  United States v. 
Maxwell, 991 F. 3d 685, 694 (CA6 2021).  In excising its dis-
cretion, the court is free to agree or disagree with any of the
policy  arguments  raised  before  it.    Cf.  Kimbrough,  552 
U. S., at 111.  All that the First Step Act requires is that a 
district court make clear that it “reasoned through [the par-
ties’] arguments.”  991 F. 3d, at 693. 

The  broad  discretion  that  the  First  Step  Act  affords  to 
district courts also counsels in favor of deferential appellate 
review.  As a general matter, “it is not the role of an appel-
late court to substitute its judgment for that of the sentenc-
ing  court  as  to  the  appropriateness  of  a  particular  sen-
tence.”  Solem  v.  Helm,  463  U. S.  277,  290,  n. 16  (1983).
Section 404(c) of the First Step Act confers particular dis-
cretion, clarifying that the Act does not “require a court to
reduce any sentence.”  Other than legal errors in recalcu-
lating  the  Guidelines  to  account  for  the  Fair  Sentencing 
Act’s  changes,  see  Gall  v.  United  States,  552  U. S.  38,  51 
(2007), appellate review should not be overly searching.

Put simply, the First Step Act does not require a district