The Supreme Court ruled 6–3 against a man convicted of felony distribution of methamphetamine, a ruling that seems likely to frustrate the efforts of many federal prison inmates who seek to reduce their sentences under the Trump-era First Step Act.
The issue in the case was whether Mark Pulsifer had to receive a mandatory 15-year prison term or could avail himself of a so-called safety valve provision in the statute that would allow him a chance at receiving a lighter sentence.
The Supreme Court found that the safety valve provision didn’t apply to Mr. Pulsifer’s case.
The March 15 majority opinion in Pulsifer v. United States was written by Justice Elena Kagan, a liberal, but it was joined by conservatives Chief Justice John Roberts, and Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Brett Kavanaugh, and Amy Coney Barrett.
Justice Neil Gorsuch, a conservative, filed a dissenting opinion, which was joined by liberal Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson.
The First Step Act, a bipartisan measure approved by Congress and signed by then-President Donald Trump in 2018, reformed aspects of the criminal justice system, making it easier for the courts to reduce penalties for nonviolent drug offenders.
At the time he signed the law, President Trump said it constituted “an incredible moment” for “criminal justice reform.” He singled out the sentencing reforms included in it, saying, “Americans from across the political spectrum can unite around prison reform legislation that will reduce crime while giving our fellow citizens a chance at redemption, so if something happens and they make a mistake, they get a second chance at life.”
Under the safety valve provision of the statute, judges are allowed to ignore mandatory minimum sentences when defendants convicted of nonviolent drug offenses present only a limited criminal history. In such cases, judges can follow the more lenient established sentencing guidelines instead.
The provision includes three requirements related to the person’s criminal track record.
Defendants are eligible if they do not have a lengthy criminal history, a previous serious offense, “and” a previous violent offense.
The justices considered whether defendants cease to qualify for the safety valve if they fail only one of the criteria. Point values are assigned to offenses.
The petitioner, Mr. Pulsifer, entered a guilty plea in federal district court in Iowa to one count of distributing 50 grams or more of methamphetamine, contrary to federal law. Because he was previously convicted of a serious drug felony, the statutory minimum penalty for the new offense was 15 years imprisonment.
Mr. Pulsifer argued that under the First Step Act, he was eligible to be sentenced under sentencing guidelines and without regard to the statutory minimum of 15 years. Under the act, his case would be evaluated under a criminal history point-based system.
The district court rejected the First Step Act argument but sentenced him under a different authority to 162 months, or 13.5 years, in prison, to be followed by 10 years of supervised release.
Mr. Pulsifer appealed, arguing that the court erred in not applying the guideline range that would have been in effect if there were no statutory minimum.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit affirmed the trial court in July 2022.
At the Supreme Court oral argument on Oct. 2, 2023, attorneys and justices discussed at length whether the word “and” means the same thing in all contexts.
At the time, two members of the court seemed exasperated at the prolonged discussion of what “and” meant.
Justice Jackson, who used to work for the U.S. Sentencing Commission, said the stakes were high for criminal defendants.
“I appreciate that ‘and’ can sometimes mean ‘or,’ but this is not a conversation. This is a statute. And it’s a criminal statute with huge implications for the lives and well-being of the people who come through the system.”
Justice Alito joined in.
“Everybody, I assume, in this courtroom today speaks the English language, and all we’re trying to do is understand some words in the English language,” he said.
“It just seems to me that a lot of these arguments that we’ve heard, I mean, the people here who haven’t studied the case must think … this is gibberish.”
Justice Kagan wrote in the majority opinion that according to the safety-valve provision, 18 U.S. Code Section 3553(f), a judge is supposed to sentence a defendant “without regard to any statutory minimum” if it determines that the criteria have been met.
“And” must be interpreted strictly, the court held.
Mr. Pulsifer must meet all the conditions, Justice Kagan wrote.
Congress “did not extend safety-valve relief to all defendants, but only to some,” she added.
In his dissenting opinion, Justice Gorsuch wrote that throughout the 1980s and 1990s, Congress kept increasing mandatory minimum prison sentences.
“In part due to these policies, the federal prison population grew by more than 100 percent in less than a decade,” he wrote.
But Congress tried to “recalibrate its approach” with the First Step Act “by promising more individuals the chance to avoid one-size-fits-all mandatory minimums and receive instead sentences that account for their particular circumstances and crimes.”
Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) filed a brief with the court in a separate case praising the First Step Act as “the most significant criminal justice reform bill in a generation,” Justice Gorsuch wrote.
The government’s stance, he said, was that the act should be read “as promising a defendant a chance at individualized sentencing only when he does not have any of the three listed traits—A, B, or C.”
“If this difference seems a small one, it is anything but,” Justice Gorsuch wrote. “Adopting the government’s preferred interpretation guarantees that thousands more people in the federal criminal justice system will be denied a chance—just a chance—at an individualized sentence.
“For them, the First Step Act offers no hope.”
This article by Matthew Vadum appeared March 15, 2024, in The Epoch Times. It was updated March 17, 2024.