Man freed by First Step Act faces life in prison for nonviolent drug offense after SCOTUS ruling

Two years after being freed from federal custody, Patrick Dewayne Smith spends his Sundays surrounded by relatives in a modest brick church topped with a white steeple in rural Tennessee. Balancing two jobs, he regularly attends youth ball games to support nieces and nephews he never got the chance to know earlier. Having spent 13 years in prison for a nonviolent drug offense, the 47-year-old is focused on putting his life back together.However, Smith now faces the prospect of being sent back behind bars for the rest of his life.His early release in 2024 was granted by a federal judge following guidelines established after Congress enacted the First Step Act, a landmark criminal justice reform passed during President Donald Trump’s first term. Yet a Supreme Court decision handed down in May determined that individuals sentenced under earlier, stricter statutes cannot point to the contrast between those penalties and current sentencing guidelines to justify early compassionate release."Every time I get a call, I’m hoping it’s some good news. Or, you know, at least not no bad news," said Smith, a tall, soft-spoken man whose beard is flecked with gray.According to sentencing reform advocacy organization FAMM, previously known as Families Against Mandatory Minimums, Smith is among roughly a dozen individuals across the United States who could be forced to return to prison as a result of the ruling. The organization warns that without clemency from the White House, these individuals could lose their second chances permanently.The First Step Act represented the most expansive overhaul of federal sentencing guidelines in decades.Among its key provisions, the law scaled back several long mandatory minimum sentences, particularly those tied to nonviolent drug offenses. At the time, Trump stated that the legislation would "make our communities safer and give former inmates a second chance at life after they have served their time."The measure was heavily championed by Jared Kushner, Trump’s son-in-law and senior adviser, whose father had served time in federal prison during Kushner’s youth.Jared Kushner, President Donald Trump's son-in-law (Reuters)While thousands of prisoners have been released since the law took effect, subsequent Supreme Court rulings have restricted the avenues available for individuals serving lengthy sentences to challenge their incarceration. For Smith and others in similar positions, opposing legal interpretations have left them in a high-stakes legal limbo."They’re doing everything that they should be doing. They’re reestablishing relationships with families. They’re volunteering in their communities. They’re working," said Shanna Rifkin, general counsel for FAMM. "Having them reincarcerated is so unjust given that they have demonstrated their rehabilitation."Rifkin stressed that without executive clemency granted by the White House, their second chances could be revoked.An official from the White House, speaking anonymously because they were not authorized to discuss the matter publicly, noted that Trump remains proud of signing the First Step Act and that the administration is actively monitoring ongoing developments.In 2023, the U.S. Sentencing Commission implemented updated regulations concerning individuals serving exceptionally long sentences. Under these provisions, judges were permitted to take changes in sentencing law into account when evaluating compassionate release petitions for inmates who had already completed at least 10 years of their sentence.The update sparked disagreement.The Department of Justice asserted that the new framework exceeded the scope authorized by the First Step Act. Nonetheless, federal judges granted release to dozens of applicants nationwide after evaluating statutory changes alongside personal circumstances, according to FAMM.The legal dispute ultimately reached the Supreme Court, which issued a 6-3 decision in May. The majority held that disparities stemming from past sentencing laws do not constitute "extraordinary and compelling" grounds for compassionate release."It is hard to see how Congress’s deliberate decision not to extend newly reduced penalties to those already sentenced could be a convincing reason that ‘warrant(s)’ a reduction," wrote Justice Amy Coney Barrett for the conservative majority.Daniel Harawa, a law professor at New York University, pointed out that the ruling was one of two decisions from the recent Supreme Court term that limited options for long-serving inmates. "I worry a lot about what this means for federal criminal justice reform," he observed.Prior convictions meant a life sentenceFor Smith and about a dozen other individuals nationwide, the outcome could force them to serve out sentences that courts would no longer hand down under present law.Smith was raised in a small town in rural northern Alabama and fell into drug addiction as a teenager, according to filings submitted by his attorneys. At age 17, he was arrested for selling crack cocaine to an informant on two occasions. Subsequent marijuana convictions followed several years later, resulting in a three-year prison stint. Following his release, he found employment in construction and janitorial work.Supreme Court Prison Sentencing (Copyright 2026 The Associated Press. All rights reserved)In 2010, federal prosecutors alleged he became involved in an operation distributing crack cocaine and marijuana along the border between Tennessee and Alabama. Captured on wiretaps recorded by the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration, Smith was convicted of drug conspiracy and money laundering after stepping back from a plea agreement that proposed a sentence of 12 to 14 years in exchange for his cooperation.Although his attorneys characterized his role in the operation as "unremarkable," federal law required that his prior record automatically trigger a mandatory life sentence.The presiding judge openly questioned whether the severe penalty was proportionate to the offense, but noted that statutory mandates left her no discretion. Smith’s sentence ended up being the longest of the 20 individuals charged in the case, exceeding even that of the operation's leader.During his incarceration, Smith focused on maintaining a clean record, taking on institutional jobs and avoiding disciplinary infractions."What kept me sane was that faith, that belief in God," he recalled.He endured the absence of simple comforts, such as sleeping in a full-sized bed or soaking in a bath after work. He also missed major life milestones: his mother passed away during his first year of imprisonment, and he could not bring himself to ask his family to cover the $1,000 expense required for him to be escorted home for her funeral.After 13 years, Smith got his second chanceFollowing the Sentencing Commission’s revised guidelines under the First Step Act, Smith petitioned a judge to reduce his sentence to time served. After nearly a year of consideration, the court granted his petition, allowing him to regain his freedom.He returned to Alabama, settling into a home shared with his sister and her daughter.Last month, federal prosecutors filed legal papers contesting his release, citing the Supreme Court’s recent decision. They contended that Smith remained subject to a 25-year mandatory minimum sentence even under current statutes, describing the ruling that freed him as "difficult to justify."A Department of Justice official, speaking on condition of anonymity to address an active case, stated that the Supreme Court decision invalidates his release and prevents the department from supporting any sentence below the statutory minimum.The prospect of returning to prison has caused deep distress for his father, James Smith, an active member of the Willow Grove Missionary Baptist Church."When you got rapists and murderers and you get this guy on a nonviolent case and you want him for life," he said, "it doesn’t sit well with me."