Justice Samuel Alito said the Supreme Court ignored Congress’s intention in its ruling on retroactive relief under the First Step Act on Thursday.
“Instead, the Court embraces an interpretation that has no limiting principle and affords petitioners a windfall,” Alito wrote in his dissent. “That is an indefensible result based on indefensible reasoning. I cannot agree with the Court’s decision, so I must respectfully dissent.”
Justices Clarence Thomas, Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett joined Alito’s dissent.
Why It Matters
The case centers on the First Step Act, a 2018 law aimed at reforming federal prisons and sentencing laws.
The legislation included more lenient sentencing guidelines for individuals who possess a firearm while committing other crimes. The law retroactively applies to an eligible offender whose sentence “has not been imposed.”
The Court majority ruled that any offender who appears before the court for sentencing since the First Step Act was enacted is subject to the new guidelines under the law, including offenders who are being resentenced.
What To Know
In 2009, Tony Hewitt, Corey Duffey and Jarvis Ross were convicted of multiple counts of bank robbery and conspiracy to commit bank robbery, along with use of a firearm during a crime of violence.
They were each sentenced to five years for their first use of a firearm offense, and 25 years for each count beyond their first. In total, they each received a sentence exceeding 325 years. Roughly 25 years of that sentence were due to robbery-related charges.
A district court vacated the sentences and some convictions after the enactment of the First Step Act. At resentencing, Hewitt, Duffey and Ross argued that the more lenient penalties under the new legislation apply.
Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson wrote the Court’s majority opinion, except for parts four and five, which Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Neil Gorsuch did not join.
She said the law indicates that “only past sentences with continued validity preclude application of the Act’s new penalties.”
Alito said that the law’s text does not support the Court’s “boundless interpretation,” which would allow any defendant whose sentence is vacated to claim retroactive relief.
“Indeed, the portions of today’s decision that command the votes of only three Justices give the game away,” he wrote.
What People Are Saying
Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, in the Court majority opinion: “A judge would thus correctly conclude at resentencing that, if an offender’s past sentence has been vacated, a sentence ‘has not been imposed’ upon that offender for purposes of the First Step Act; hence, the court can impose a new sentence today.”
Justice Samuel Alito, in a dissenting opinion: “Animating the Court’s atextual interpretation is a thinly veiled desire to march in the parade of sentencing reform. But our role is to interpret the statute before us, not overhaul criminal sentencing.”
What Happens Next
The Court’s ruling reversed the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals’ interpretation of the law. The case was remanded for further proceedings.
Do you have a story that Newsweek should be covering? Do you have any questions about this story? Contact LiveNews@newsweek.com.
Read the full article here
