lawrota.com

The Supreme Court recently engaged in a critical discussion about the interpretation of drug offenses triggering mandatory 15-year sentences under the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA), a federal three-strikes law. In a session marked by intricate legal considerations, the justices navigated through the complexities of determining which drug offenses qualify under the law, raising questions about the application of controlled substance schedules overseen by the attorney general.

The Supreme Court recently convened to deliberate on the application of mandatory 15-year sentences under the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA), a federal law imposing such sentences on those with three violent felonies or serious drug offenses. The focus of the discussion was on identifying which drug offenses fall under the ACCA, given the evolving nature of controlled substance schedules overseen by the attorney general.

The dilemma arises due to variations in the controlled substance schedules over time, prompting lawyers in the cases to present three options for determining the applicable schedule: the one in force when the state drug offense occurred, the one in place during the federal gun crime, or the one in effect at the time of sentencing for the federal gun crime.

The first case involved Justin Brown, whose lawyer advocated for the third option. However, some justices expressed skepticism about the potential arbitrariness of this approach. Brown’s case involved multiple state marijuana offenses, and the timing of the drug schedule changes played a crucial role in determining his 15-year mandatory sentence.

The second case featured Eugene Jackson, whose lawyer argued that the relevant time for consideration should be when the federal gun crime was committed. Jackson had faced cocaine offenses in Florida, and the evolving drug schedule affected the outcome of his 15-year sentence.

In the arguments, Justice Amy Coney Barrett questioned the rationale behind different sentences for defendants convicted at the same time but sentenced differently based on the timing of sentencing. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson highlighted that applying the schedule in place at the time of sentencing was consistent with standard practice.

While the middle option would have spared the defendant in the second case, the justices grappled with the implications of various schedules on sentencing outcomes. Andrew Adler, representing Eugene Jackson, emphasized the importance of considering the schedule at the time of committing the federal gun crime.

The session revealed a divide among the justices, with Justice Clarence Thomas suggesting that a revision of the schedule effectively amended the statute. Justice Sonia Sotomayor expressed skepticism about the government’s argument, calling it a “serious weakness.”

In conclusion, the Supreme Court’s deliberations on interpreting the ACCA shed light on the challenges posed by evolving drug schedules and their impact on mandatory sentences, illustrating the intricate nature of legal decision-making.

source: Supreme Court Looks for Middle Ground on Mandatory Gun Sentences – The New York Times (nytimes.com)

#SupremeCourt #LegalDeliberation #ArmedCareerCriminalAct #DrugOffenses #MandatorySentences #LegalInterpretation #ControlledSubstanceSchedules #JusticeSystem