Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/21pdf/20-1650_3dq3.pdf
Page Number: 28.0

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

5 

KAVANAUGH, J., dissenting 

statutory  text.    The  Court  in  effect  green-lights  district
courts,  if  they  wish,  to  make  the  2016  amendment  to  the 
career-offender guideline retroactive in First Step Act pro-
ceedings—even though neither Congress nor the Sentenc-
ing  Commission  has  made  that  amendment  retroactive. 
Perhaps the Court’s decision represents better sentencing
policy.  Perhaps not.  But under the Constitution’s separa-
tion of powers, this Court may not simply rewrite the First 
Step Act as the Court thinks best. 

In sum, I would conclude that the First Step Act author-
izes district courts to reduce a sentence based on changes to 
the crack-cocaine sentencing ranges, but not based on other 
unrelated  legal  or  factual  changes  since  the  original  sen-
tencing.  The Court holds otherwise.  Therefore, I respect-
fully dissent.