In a significant judgment, the US Supreme Court ruled that fewer criminal defendants are eligible for relief under the First Step Act than was previously assumed. The Act, designed to correct lengthy prison sentences imposed in drug cases, has stirred controversy with its use of the term “and”. With the court finding that “and” doesn’t actually mean “and” in the wording of the Act, the number of prisoners who can take advantage of the law’s provisions is now significantly reduced.
The thorny issue turned on the Act’s provision allowing judges to disregard mandatory minimum sentences based on a defendant’s criminal history. The crux of the dispute came down to whether the term “and”, as used within this particular context, should be interpreted more like “or”, effectively disqualifying defendants with specific criminal histories.
Delivering a 6-3 opinion, Justice Elena Kagan and the Supreme Court on Friday sided with the Biden administration’s interpretation. This was a notable setback for defendants hoping to utilize the so-called “safety valve” relief presented in the 2018 legislation.
Further details about this ruling are available in the full report by Kimberly Strawbridge Robinson here.