Dorsey v. United States

2012-06-21

Headline: Reduced crack-cocaine mandatory minimums apply to offenders sentenced after Aug. 3, 2010, even if their crimes occurred earlier, lowering many pre-Act sentences and reducing sentencing disparities.

Holding: The Court held that the Fair Sentencing Act’s lower mandatory minimum penalties apply to people who committed crack-cocaine offenses before August 3, 2010 but were sentenced after that date.

Real World Impact:

Makes lower mandatory minimums available to pre-Act defendants sentenced after August 3, 2010.
Reduces sentencing disparities that would have resulted from the old 100-to-1 ratio.
Vacates lower-court rulings and sends cases back for resentencing consistent with this opinion.

Topics: drug sentencing, mandatory minimums, sentencing guidelines, retroactive relief

Summary

Background

Two defendants (Corey Hill and Edward Dorsey) sold crack cocaine before August 3, 2010 but were not sentenced until after that date. Congress had long treated crack much more harshly than powder cocaine, creating a 100-to-1 ratio. The Fair Sentencing Act of 2010 raised the crack thresholds and reduced that ratio to 18-to-1, effective August 3, 2010, and instructed the Sentencing Commission to issue conforming Guidelines amendments.

Reasoning

The Court asked whether Congress intended the Act’s more lenient mandatory minimums to apply to those who committed their offenses before August 3 but were sentenced after that date. The majority concluded Congress did intend application, relying on six considerations: the interpretive role of the 1871 saving statute, the Sentencing Reform Act’s rule that judges use Guidelines in effect on the sentencing date, the Fair Sentencing Act’s emergency instruction to the Commission, and concerns that refusing application would produce large disparities and disproportionate sentences. The Court found these factors together show a 'plain import' that the new penalties apply, and it emphasized avoiding greater unfairness and practical anomalies.

Real world impact

The decision means many people who committed crack offenses before the Act but were sentenced after August 3, 2010 can receive the Act’s lower statutory minimums. The Court noted the Commission could make Guidelines changes retroactive and that courts can apply the new minimums even before final guideline publication. The Court vacated the courts of appeals decisions and sent the cases back for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

Dissents or concurrances

Justice Scalia, joined by three other Justices, dissented. He argued the 1871 saving statute presumes that penalties incurred under the old law remain in force unless Congress clearly says otherwise, and that the majority failed to meet the strict standard against implied repeal. The dissent warned the decision undermines predictability and that the presumption against implied repeals should be respected.