On Monday, the U.S. Supreme Court is set to hear a case that may seem trivial at first glance but has significant implications for federal sentencing guidelines. The case revolves around the interpretation of the word "and" in the First Step Act, a bipartisan criminal justice reform bill passed in 2018.
The First Step Act aims to reduce mandatory minimum sentences and grant judges more discretion in sentencing. A specific provision, known as the "safety valve," allows judges to bypass mandatory minimum sentences for low-level, nonviolent drug offenders who plead guilty and cooperate with prosecutors. However, the language of this provision has led to a split among federal courts. The question is whether the word "and" should be interpreted as "or" affecting the eligibility criteria for the safety valve provision.
Mark Pulsifer, a 61-year-old inmate, serves as the focal point of this legal dispute. Pulsifer pleaded guilty to distributing at least 50 grams of methamphetamine and was sentenced to 13.5 years in prison. His legal team argues that all three conditions specified in the safety valve provision must be met to impose a longer sentence. The government contends that meeting just one condition is sufficient.
The case is not merely an exercise in linguistic interpretation. According to data from the U.S. Sentencing Commission, nearly 6,000 people convicted of drug trafficking in the 2021 fiscal year could be affected by the Court's decision. Overall, more than 10,000 people sentenced since the law's enactment might see changes in their sentences.
Federal appeals courts in Chicago, Cincinnati, and New Orleans have ruled against broadening the safety valve eligibility, while courts in Atlanta, Richmond, and San Francisco have taken a more expansive view. The Supreme Court's decision could resolve this inconsistency and set a precedent for future cases.
Douglas Berman, a sentencing expert at Ohio State University’s law school, suggests that the language of the statute alone favors a broader interpretation. However, he also notes that such a broad reading could essentially apply to everyone, which may not have been Congress's intent.
The Supreme Court's decision could have a lasting impact on how judges exercise discretion in sentencing for low-level, nonviolent drug offenses. A ruling is expected by spring, and it could either uphold or dramatically change the current landscape of federal sentencing.
The California Supreme Court has provided new guidance on when a recent amendment to the state’s Penal Code applies to defendants whose judgments are not yet final. From now on, an "upper term" sentence must be reversed on appeal and remanded back to the trial court unless the reviewing court... Read More »
On Thursday, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the conviction of a federal prisoner despite subsequent changes in the law rendering his conviction invalid. The ruling prevents inmates from seeking federal review of a conviction, even an unlawful conviction, if they already sought federal relief in the past. In 2000, Marcus... Read More »
As of Thursday, March 4, 2021, noncitizens with criminal records who are hoping to avoid deportation must prove that their crimes aren’t among those that Congress has decreed require mandatory removal from the U.S. Federal laws are often ambiguous, which compounds the problem. Some immigration provisions require the deportation of... Read More »
The debate goes on. Should judges be allowed to grant early release to felons who committed crimes when they were young adults with immature brains, or would their early release let hundreds of violent criminals go free? The D.C. Council unanimously agreed with proponents of the first theory and passed... Read More »
