Supreme Court limits who qualifies for 'safety valve' sentencing law

[BumRushDaShow]

Source: Roll Call

Posted March 15, 2024 at 12:05pm


The Supreme Court decided Congress didn’t mean “and” when it put that word in a 2018 federal criminal justice overhaul law that sets eligibility for a “safety valve” for defendants to avoid mandatory minimum prison sentences.

In a 6-3 decision Friday written by Justice Elena Kagan, the majority held the “and” acts more like an “or” when it comes to a three-prong test related to a defendant’s prior criminal history.

Kagan wrote that defendants would be disqualified for the safety valve if they meet any of the three criteria created by the law, rather than being disqualified only if they meet all three.

Kagan’s opinion affirmed a lower court opinion that narrowed the pathway for federal defendants to avoid mandatory minimum sentences.

Read more: https://rollcall.com/2024/03/15/supreme-court-limits-who-qualifies-for-safety-valve-sentencing-law/

---

Link to SCOTUS decision (PDF) - https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/22-340_3e04.pdf

[3Hotdogs]

1. That's good. We have the record for the highest number of people in prisons.

Lets not lose our ranking.

[sir pball]

2. Yowza, what a weird split. This is going to be some interesting reading.

Majority by Kagan, joined by Roberts, Kavanaugh, Barrett, Alito, and Thomas; dissent by Gorsuch, joined by Sotomayor and Jackson…that's one of the stranger divisions I've seen in a while.

Should be a good peruse on my next day off…

[ret5hd]

3. well, so much for "originalism".

a word means just what i want it to mean when i want it to mean that, but not when i don’t want it to mean that. And taken to its conclusion, this sentence is not self-contradictory!

[Hermit-The-Prog]

10. We are through the looking glass now...

[SamKnause]

4. It seems the police, the Supreme Court, and Congress want to cage all of us.

[GB_RN]

5. Not The First Time This Has Happened...

Roberts and company did this with the student loan forgiveness lawsuit. The assholes totally disregarded the fact that the law authorized the President to modify loan terms and conditions. That includes forgiving debt.

I guess they like playing the part of Inego Montoya from Princess Bride: “You keep using that word. I don’t think it means what you think it means.” We’ll just make it mean. WTFE we want.

[angrychair]

6. We seem to be wondering "why"

The SCOTUS could come to such a decision. It's simple, really, because they are corrupt. All of them.
Example 1: the so-called liberal justices have lifetime appointments and apparently it's near impossible to impeach them, so why haven't any of the justices, especially the "liberal" ones spoken out? What prevents them from speaking out?
Example 2: rulings like this in which that create whole new words in and completely reinterpret with new meaning ,what Congress actually wrote in the law.

Example 3: not a single one has volunteered to be held to a higher ethical code or even just the same ethical code all other federal judges are held. Why is cited as the violation of the Constitution here? What amendment did it violate?

[PSPS]

7. Not very different from what was done with the second amendment.

[Socal31]

8. Not a happy day.

Not a good feeling when Gorsuch has the most compassionate and I'd argue accurate interpretation of the statute in question, writing for the minority:


"Gorsuch wrote the majority opinion “guarantees that thousands of people in the federal criminal justice system will be denied a chance, just a chance, at an individualized sentence.”

“It is a chance Congress promised in the First Step Act, and it is a promise this Court should have honored,” Gorsuch wrote."

[dalton99a]

9. The opinion is worth reading.

[Hermit-The-Prog]

11. Yes. Thank you.