In the case of Alejandra Tapia v. United States, 2010, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that a sentencing judge cannot impose or lengthen a prison term in order to facilitate an offender's rehabilitation. The petitioner, Alejandra Tapia, had been sentenced to 51 months in prison for smuggling unauthorized aliens into the country and her sentence was increased by the lower court with an aim towards enabling her participation in a specific drug treatment program within federal correctional system. She appealed this decision arguing that it violated federal law which prohibits courts from using rehabilitation as a factor when determining lengths of sentences (18 U.S.C §3582(a)). The Supreme Court agreed with Tapia’s argument and held that under federal law judges could recommend rehabilitative services but they couldn't increase imprisonment time so offenders can participate or complete these programs.

In the dissenting opinion for Alejandra Tapia v. United States, Justice Sotomayor argued that judges should have discretion to consider rehabilitation when determining a defendant's sentence length. She disagreed with the majority's interpretation of federal law which prohibits considering rehabilitation in sentencing decisions. According to her, this prohibition only applies to choosing between imprisonment and other forms of punishment like probation or supervised release, not deciding how long an offender should be incarcerated. Furthermore, she pointed out that historically judges have always considered rehabilitative needs during sentencing and Congress did not intend to completely eliminate this practice when it enacted the Sentencing Reform Act of 1984. Therefore, she believed that while mandatory minimum sentences are problematic because they limit judicial discretion and can result in overly harsh punishments for some offenders; however, allowing judges to consider rehabilitation could help mitigate these issues by enabling them to tailor sentences more closely according their individual circumstances.