ACSBlog: The Blog of the American Constitution Society

Today, the Supreme Court issued opinions in three cases involving sentencing.

In a highly anticipated case, Kimbrough v. U.S., the Court held that federal sentencing guidelines for cocaine violations are advisory, not mandatory as a lower court had ruled. The 7-2 decision, in an opinion by Justice Ginsburg, says that judges must consider the guidelines, but may deviate downward if they conclude that the sentence would be too harsh in light of the disparity between punishment for crack cocaine and cocaine in powder form.

In Gall v. U.S., the Court held that courts of appeal must review all sentences, "whether inside, just outside, or significantly outside" the sentencing guidelines range, under a deferential abuse-of-discretion standard. Under the 7-2 decision, written by Justice Stevens, judges may now impose below-guidelines sentences.

Carol Steiker, professor of law at Harvard, evaluated Kimbrough and Gall at ACS' Supreme Court preview. Nkechi Taifa, Senior Policy Analyst at the Open Society Institute, wrote this issue brief on the crack/powder disparity. Mary Price, General Counsel at Families Against Mandatory Minimums, wrote this article on Kimbrough and U.S. Sentencing Guidelines for ACSBlog.

In the final case decided today, Watson v. U.S., the Court held that a person does not "use" a firearm under 18 U.S.C. § 924 when he receive the gun in trade for drugs, and thus does not satisfy the requirement for imposing a mandatory five-year federal sentence.

More information can be found on Scotusblog.