Supreme Court Ruling May Send Individuals Released Under First Step Act Back to Prison
Patrick Dewayne Smith, who was released from prison after serving 13 years for a nonviolent drug conviction under the First Step Act, could be sent back to prison. A Supreme Court ruling in May determined that individuals sentenced under older,…
Philadelphia, PA, October 11, 2026 — A recent Supreme Court decision may have significant implications for individuals released from federal prison early under the First Step Act, potentially leading some to be returned to custody. Patrick Dewayne Smith, who had served 13 years for a nonviolent drug conviction before his release, faces the possibility of re-incarceration following the high court’s ruling.
The Supreme Court issued a decision in May that clarifies the criteria for compassionate release. The ruling stated that individuals sentenced under previous, more stringent drug laws cannot utilize the difference between their original sentence and current, more lenient penalties as grounds for seeking early release. This interpretation could affect the legal standing of those who believed such sentence disparities warranted reconsideration of their freedom.
The First Step Act, enacted in 2018, brought about various reforms to federal sentencing and prison policies, including provisions for early release based on good behavior and addressing sentencing disparities. Smith’s case highlights a potential unintended consequence or an avenue of appeal that the Supreme Court has now curtailed.
While the specific details of Patrick Dewayne Smith’s case beyond his sentence length and conviction type were not provided in the trend summary, the ruling’s broad scope suggests it could impact a notable group of individuals. Sources indicate that approximately a dozen people nationwide might be affected by this judicial interpretation. The outcome for Smith, and others in similar situations, will depend on how lower courts apply this new precedent.
The full impact and the precise number of individuals potentially affected will become clearer as legal proceedings unfold and cases are reviewed under the guidance of the Supreme Court’s May ruling. Further details regarding specific legal arguments or any subsequent actions in Smith’s case were not immediately available.
Story summarized from the original created by LINDSAY WHITEHURST on www.inquirer.com, see more information here.
Media gallery
