Rico v. United States: Abscondment and Supervised Release Tolling

In the case RICO v. UNITED STATES, the Supreme Court ruled that a defendant’s term of federal supervised release does not automatically extend if the individual absconds or fails to report. The Ninth Circuit had previously held that such a term is "tolled" while a defendant is a fugitive, allowing for new crimes committed during that period to be treated as formal release violations. However, the Supreme Court majority concluded that the Sentencing Reform Act provides no statutory authority for such an automatic extension, noting that Congress explicitly defined when release may be paused or extended. Writing for the Court, Justice Gorsuch emphasized that while judges have other tools to punish absconders, they cannot unilaterally lengthen a supervision term beyond what was originally ordered. In a dissenting opinion, Justice Alito argued that the dispute over tolling was unnecessary because sentencing judges already possess the broad legal authority to consider a defendant's criminal history when fashioning a punishment.