Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/21pdf/20-1650_3dq3.pdf
Page Number: 11.0

6 

CONCEPCION v. UNITED STATES 

Opinion of the Court 

First Step Act motion must, may, or may not consider inter-
vening changes of law or fact.2  This Court granted certio-
rari to resolve this disagreement.  594 U. S. ___ (2021). 

II 
“From the beginning of the Republic, federal judges were
entrusted with wide sentencing discretion.”  K. Stith & J. 
Cabranes,  Fear  of  Judging:  Sentencing  Guidelines  in  the
Federal Courts 9 (1998) (Stith & Cabranes).  Federal courts 
historically have exercised this broad discretion to consider
all  relevant  information  at  an  initial  sentencing  hearing,
consistent  with  their  responsibility  to  sentence  the  whole 
person before them.  That discretion also carries forward to 
later  proceedings  that  may  modify  an  original  sentence.
Such discretion is bounded only when Congress or the Con-
stitution expressly limits the type of information a district 
court may consider in modifying a sentence. 

A 
There is a “long” and “durable” tradition that sentencing 
judges  “enjo[y]  discretion  in  the  sort  of  information  they
may consider” at an initial sentencing proceeding.  Dean v. 
United States, 581 U. S. 62, 66 (2017).3  This history dates 

—————— 

2 Compare  United  States v.  Collington,  995 F. 3d  347,  355,  360  (CA4
2021) (must consider changed law and facts); United States v. Easter, 975 
F. 3d 318, 325–327 (CA3 2020) (same); United States v. Brown, 974 F. 3d 
1137, 1144–1145 (CA10 2020) (must consider intervening Circuit prece-
dent); United States v. White, 984 F. 3d 76, 93 (CADC 2020) (must con-
sider changed facts), with United States v. Maxwell, 991 F. 3d 685, 689 
(CA6 2021) (may consider); United States v. Moore, 975 F. 3d 84, 92, n. 
36 (CA2 2020) (same); United States v. Harris, 960 F. 3d 1103, 1106 (CA8 
2020) (same); United States v. Shaw, 957 F. 3d 734, 741–742 (CA7 2020) 
(same), with United States v. Denson, 963 F. 3d 1080, 1089 (CA11 2020) 
(may not consider); United States v. Kelley, 962 F. 3d 470, 475 (CA9 2020) 
(same);  United  States  v.  Hegwood,  934  F. 3d  414,  418–419  (CA5  2019) 
(same).

3 The dissent invokes another background principle: the importance of