Mandatory Minimums

Supreme Court Makes Important Mandatory Minimum Ruling Retroactive

Some in federal prison may see sentence reductions.


Credit: mikecogh / photo on flickr

A Supreme Court decision yesterday may help a number of inmates currently in federal prison reduce their sentences if they were convicted of a narrow set in crimes.

The Supreme Court heard Welch v. United States in March and ruled on the case in less than a month. That's a quick turnaround for them, but that is likely because this case was clarifying the outcome of another case decided in June 2015.

In that initial case, Johnson v. United States, the Supreme Court ruled, 8-1, that a particular mandatory minimum sentencing trigger of the federal Armed Criminal Career Act of 1984 was unconstitutionally vague and tossed it. But just because a court ruling changes sentences doesn't necessarily mean mercy for those who are already serving time. The Welch case was to determine whether this sentencing change should be retroactive. The justices ruled, with only Justice Clarence Thomas dissenting, that the change should, indeed, be retroactive.

The initial ruling itself is a little complex because federal sentencing guidelines are absurdly complicated. Here's what happened: Under federal law, a felon faces a sentence of up to 10 years for possession of a firearm. But that sentence is jumped up to a mandatory minimum of 15 years in a complex "three strikes" trigger. One possible trigger crime is a serious drug offense. Another trigger is a "violent felony." Three of these and 10 years becomes 15.

But within the definition of a "violent felony" was something known as the "residual clause." This clause included any crime that "otherwise involves conduct that presents a serious potential risk of physical injury to another." In the Johnson case, prosecutors argued that a previous conviction of being a felon in possession of a shotgun met this standard. That is, simply having a gun was conduct that presented a threat of injury. The Supreme Court ruled last year this violated due process. Such a vague definition of what constituted a violent crime "fails to give ordinary people fair notice of the conduct it punishes" or is "so standardless that it invites arbitrary enforcement." The late Justice Antonin Scalia wrote the majority decision in the Johnson ruling.

Unfortunately for those currently in prison, changes to sentencing are not inherently retroactive, as we discovered when the inordinately harsh crack sentencing laws were reduced. Mary Price, general counsel for Families Against Mandatory Minimums (FAMM) helped explain to Reason why another case was necessary.

"Generally in our system of justice," Price said, "Congress has made it very difficult to get back into court if something changes—if there's been a change in a sentence or a Supreme Court decision," unless that change has been deliberately made retroactive. But in this case, Price explained, the initial Johnson ruling resulted in a "substantive change in the law." It didn't just reduce sentences; it eliminated some conduct from even being considered as part of the crime. So now those who are affected by the ruling can go back and petition to have those sentence enhancements be vacated.

It's not clear how many people might be affected by this retroactive mandatory minimum elimination. Price said FAMM believes there are about 7,000 people serving sentences under the Armed Criminal Career Act, but there's a whole host of crimes that could trigger the elevated mandatory minimum outside of the section that the Supreme Court struck down. FAMM is encouraging people who think they may be affected by the ruling to contact their lawyers.

"We're delighted with the result, Price said. "We think it will lead to reduced sentences. It's one of the longest mandatory minimum sentences on the books and the most unjust."

NEXT: New York's Stingy Voting Rules Will Hurt Independents, Bernie Sanders, and Probably Donald Trump

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Three 12 year old girls who put a few hot pepper flakes in their teacher’s soda as a prank are being charged with felonies. If the charges stick and they ever forget about them and buy a handgun for protection they could go to jail for a decade or more. Ridiculous.

    1. What this country needs is stricter pepper-control laws. You don’t see crimes like that in places like Connecticut, where all the food is bland

  2. That must be a mistake. Surely they meant to extend the sentences of those in prison.

  3. More leftovers from the “fuck you you’re a criminal” Reaganite days. Way to go SCROTUS.

  4. Very interesting. I wrote a law review article years ago (never published) on this exact issue: when are SCOTUS rulings overturning a statute retroactive in effect? It basically comes down to balancing off reliance interests (that is, the right to rely on a statute while its on the books) v the interest in applying the “right” law.

    I thought that the presumption that SCOTUS decisions are not applied retroactively (which is effectively the way it works) was backwards, since we essentially assume that what SCOTUS does is “discover” the correct law in rendering their decision (since SCOTUS isn’t supposed to “make” law (I know, I know). The presumption should be retroactivity, which would be rebuttable by substantial reliance interests.

    There doesn’t seem to be much of a reliance interest in over-long sentences, so this strikes me as the right result. Haven’t read the opinion yet. I’m a little surprised other changes in sentencing aren’t applied retroactively, if they are the result of the courts finding that the over-long sentences were unconstitutional.

  5. I’ve made $64,000 so far this year working online and I’m a full time student. Im using an online business opportunity I heard about and I’ve made such great money. It’s really user friendly and I’m just so happy that I found out about it. Heres what I do,


  6. How to get a genuine online help? This is a question by all. Now we will get all service through online. So all are trying to get services for educational assistant, shopping, purchasing etc. The students are always look to get cheap essay writing service for the better assistance. Many fail to get this service. USA based services are always good.

  7. Most of us want to have good income but don’t know how to do that on Internet there are a lot of methods to earn huge sum at home, so I thought to share with you a genuine and guaranteed method for free to earn huge sum of money at home anyone of you interested should visit the page. BE I am more than sure that you will get best result..H7

    ——- http://www.E-cash10.COM

  8. Clarence should realize that ex-post-facto repeal–affirming and defending the rights of individuals against superstitious pseudoscience lynch mobs–is a good thing. More important, ex-post-facto laws, like prohibition laws, are an instrument of naked coercion incompatible with life and liberty. You’d think someone on the Supreme Court would at least know these sorts of differences. The Court’s function is to curb Congressional National Socialism, not enslave citizens and force them to pay for caging individuals who did not violate anyone’s rights, or upon whom groupthink has foisted cruel and unusual punishment.

  9. uptil I saw the bank draft four $8760 , I be certain …that…my sister woz actually bringing in money part time from there labtop. . there neighbour had bean doing this 4 only about eighteen months and resently cleard the depts on there home and bourt a top of the range Chrysler ….

    Clik This Link inYour Browser….

    ? ? ? ?

  10. I hope that soon issues will fix and supreme court will review its decision to make it more effective.

  11. Awesome.Here is good knowledge you shared.I’m happy to study it.Keep sharing Web hosting in Lahore

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.