On the morning of Monday, October 21, 2024, the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to review a case that has sharply divided federal courts across the country: what standards judges are to consider when deciding whether to revoke supervised release.  Specifically, in Esteras v. United States, the Court is asked to resolve whether, when revoking supervised release, sentencing judges may consider “the need for the sentence to reflect the seriousness of the offense, promote respect for the law, and provide just punishment for the offense.”  But that is rather difficult, if not impossible to do, without sufficiant data and statistics. 

At any given time, there are an estimated 100,000-plus individuals on supervised release.  Approximately one-third will have their supervision revoked during the lifetime of their term with over 80% receiving a new prison term, which translates, on average, to over 25,000 additional sentences of imprisonment each year.  That is significant when considering that last fiscal year, there were only 64,000 new sentencings imposed.  Thus, more than one out of every three inmates entering the Bureau of Prisons each year is (re-)entering as a result of a supervised release revocation; re-entering already over-crowded facilities.

Hopefully the U.S. Sentencing Commission is now prompted to begin consistently collecting revocation data and reporting the same publicly.  Only then will judges, defendants, and practitioners have sufficient data to assess whether a prison sentence is necessary when revoking supervision, and if so, for how long.