Supreme Court split on firearm sentencing for drug criminals
The Supreme Court Divided on Sentencing Guidelines for Gun Offenders with Drug Offenses
The Supreme Court found itself at odds on Monday over how to apply sentencing guidelines to defendants in gun cases who have committed drug offenses with since-decriminalized substances. This split among the justices sets the stage for a potentially divided ruling as the nation grapples with rising crime rates in major cities.
The cases being considered by the Court, Brown v. United States and Jackson v. United States, both revolve around the Armed Career Criminal Act. This law imposes an additional maximum sentence of 10 years in prison for felons found in possession of a gun after a previous felony conviction. However, if the person caught with a firearm has three previous felonies for ”serious” drug offenses, the maximum additional sentence increases to 15 years.
The Definition of “Serious Drug Offense”
The central question before the Supreme Court is whether the definition of “serious drug offense” in the Armed Career Criminal Act should encompass the federal drug laws that were in effect at the time of the firearm offense, which occurred years after the prior state drug offense.
In their respective cases, convicts Eugene Jackson and Justin Rashaad Brown argue that the definition of serious drug offenses should take into account the federal drug schedules that were in place either when they committed the federal firearm offense or at the time of their sentencing for that offense.
Both defendants contend that the federal drug laws in place at the time of their original drug offenses should not determine whether they face the harsher punishment imposed on felons convicted of a gun crime. Instead, they argue that the enhanced sentencing they face should consider more recent versions of the federal drug schedules, which outline the penalties associated with different substances.
Implications and Perspectives
The eventual ruling by the Supreme Court could have significant implications in areas where local law enforcement struggles to combat rising crime rates. Supporters of enhanced sentencing requirements argue that these laws provide prosecutors with additional tools to deter repeat offenders, while opponents claim that they can lead to disproportionately long sentences and exacerbate racial disparities.
An attorney for the U.S. Solicitor General’s Office argued in favor of incorporating the drug schedules that were in effect at the time of the original state drug offenses.
Advocates for the defendants’ position point to the fluid classification of drugs under the Controlled Substances Act, which the Armed Career Criminal Act relies on. Since 1971, over 200 substances have been added, removed, or transferred between schedules.
While it remains uncertain which definition the Supreme Court will adopt, a majority of the justices seemed unlikely to side with the federal government. Justice Clarence Thomas suggested that changes to federal drug schedules effectively function as amendments to the Armed Career Criminal Act itself. Justice Elena Kagan noted that controlled substances can change from year to year, supporting the defendants’ argument.
If the Court agrees with Brown’s arguments, both defendants would be resentenced. If they only accept Jackson’s argument, then only he would be resentenced, resulting in a narrower ruling.
The Far-Reaching Impact of the Court’s Decision
The ruling issued by the justices before the end of June next year will have a cascading effect on whether past, current, and future criminal defendants facing firearm charges will receive additional prison time.
The U.S. Sentencing Commission’s 2021 report on the Armed Career Criminal Act revealed that armed career criminals make up a “small portion” of the federal criminal caseload. However, the report emphasized that over half of “armed career criminals with both prior violent and drug trafficking convictions” were rearrested within eight years.
These arguments before the Supreme Court come at a time when violent crime rates have surged in 2023. In Washington, D.C. alone, homicides have increased by 33% compared to last year, reaching the highest level in 20 years, according to data from the Metropolitan Police Department.
Click here to read more from The Washington Examiner.
What is the argument presented by the defense attorneys regarding the consideration of drug schedules in effect at the time of the federal firearm offense?
Re in effect at the time of the federal firearm offense. They contended that this approach is consistent with the overall purpose of the Armed Career Criminal Act, which is to target individuals with a history of both firearms and drug offenses. They argued that by considering the drug schedules in effect at the time of the firearm offense, the court can better assess the potential danger posed by the defendant and tailor the punishment accordingly.
On the other hand, the defense attorneys for Jackson and Brown argued that the focus should be on the drug laws in effect at the time of the original drug offenses, as these laws dictated the severity of the penalties they faced for those crimes. They asserted that it would be unfair and unjust to use outdated drug schedules to determine their punishment for a separate offense committed years later. They emphasized that the purpose of the sentencing guidelines should be to promote fairness and proportionality, not to impose excessive punishments based on outdated laws.
The justices of the Supreme Court appeared divided during the oral arguments, with some expressing concern about the potential for disproportionate sentencing and racial disparities, while others emphasized the need to prioritize public safety and deterrence. It remains to be seen how the Court will ultimately rule on this issue.
In recent years, there has been a growing national debate regarding the effectiveness and fairness of sentencing laws, particularly in relation to drug offenses and gun crimes. The Supreme Court’s ruling on the application of sentencing guidelines in cases involving drug offenses and firearm possession could have far-reaching implications for future cases and shape the direction of criminal justice policy in the United States.
As the nation grapples with rising crime rates, particularly in major cities, it is crucial for the Supreme Court to carefully consider the impact of its ruling on public safety, individual rights, and the overall fairness of the criminal justice system. The decision will not only impact the specific cases being considered, but also have implications for future cases involving similar legal issues. The Supreme Court’s responsibility in this matter is to strike a balance between deterring crime and ensuring just and proportionate punishments. The divide among the justices reflects the complexity and significance of this issue, and it remains to be seen how they will navigate through this highly contentious matter.
" Conservative News Daily does not always share or support the views and opinions expressed here; they are just those of the writer."
*As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases
Now loading...