The Supreme Court appeared split on Monday about how to apply sentencing guidelines to defendants in gun cases who've committed drug offenses with since-decriminalized substances, setting up a potentially divided ruling as the nation grapples with rising crime rates in major cities.
Justices weighed a pair of consolidated cases, Brown v. United States and Jackson v. United States, both of which deal with the Armed Career Criminal Act, a law that tacks on a maximum of 10 additional years in prison to the sentence of felons found in possession of a gun after a previous felony conviction. But that maximum additional sentence changes to a 15-year minimum addition if the person caught with a firearm has three previous felonies for "serious" drug offenses.
MAJOR REPUBLICAN DONORS RETURN TO TRUMP FOR 2024 DESPITE TURNING ON HIM AFTER 2020
The question for the Supreme Court surrounds whether the "serious drug offense" definition in the Armed Career Criminal Act embraces the federal drug laws that were in effect at the time of the firearm offense, which occurred years after the prior state drug offense.
In their respective cases, convicts Eugene Jackson and Justin Rashaad Brown argue that the definition of serious drug offenses should incorporate the federal drug schedules that were in place either when the individual committed the federal firearm offense, which is Jackson's argument, or at the time of the sentencing for that offense, which Brown contends.
Both essentially argue that the federal drug laws in place at the time of their original drug offenses should not dictate whether they face the harsher punishment accorded to felons who are later convicted of a gun crime. Rather, they say the enhanced sentencing they face should take into account more recent versions of the federal drug schedules, which lay out the penalties associated with various substances.
The eventual ruling could have implications in places where local law enforcement has struggled to contain rising crime. Proponents of enhanced sentencing requirements say those types of laws give prosecutors additional tools to stop repeat offenders; opponents say they can lead to unfairly long sentences and can worsen racial disparities.
An attorney for the U.S. Solicitor General's Office argued in favor of incorporating the drug schedules that were in effect at the time of the original state drug offenses.
Advocates for the convicts' position have suggested the fluid classification of drugs under the Controlled Substances Act, which the Armed Career Criminal Act uses, gives credit to their argument. Since the Controlled Substances Act took effect in 1971, more than 200 substances have been added, removed, or transferred from one schedule to another.
While it was unclear which definition the Supreme Court would adopt, a majority of the justices did not seem poised to side with the federal government.
Justice Clarence Thomas, an appointee of former President George H. W. Bush, noted that changes to federal drug schedules appeared to serve "in effect" as an amendment to the Armed Career Criminal Act itself. “So if in effect it’s an amendment of [the Armed Career Criminal Act], why is it treated differently or less exactingly than an actual amendment of ACCA?” Thomas asked.
Justice Elena Kagan, an Obama-era appointee, offered a point that appeared sympathetic to the defendants, suggesting, “What’s going to be a controlled substance next year is not necessarily the same as this year."
Justice Brett Kavanaugh, a Trump-era appointee, appeared to offer the strongest arguments in favor of the government's position, saying that serious drug offenders are on notice from their first conviction that they can't possess a gun and that after three convictions, they become subject to the 15-year minimum.
If the high court agrees with Brown's arguments, both defendants would be resentenced. If justices only accepted Jackson's argument, then only he would be resentenced, and the Supreme Court's ruling would be more narrow.
But the ruling the justices ultimately issue before the end of June next year will have a cascading effect on whether past, current, and future criminal defendants facing firearm charges will face additional prison time.
CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER
The U.S. Sentencing Commission's 2021 report on the Armed Career Criminal Act found that armed career criminals comprise a "small portion" of the federal criminal caseload, with the number of armed career criminals dropping from 590 in fiscal 2010 to 312 in fiscal 2019. But the report underscored that more than half of "armed career criminals with both prior violent and drug trafficking convictions" were rearrested within eight years.
The high court's arguments also come as violent crime rates have spiked in 2023, with homicides up 33% this year over last year in Washington, D.C., alone, the highest it's been in 20 years, according to data from the Metropolitan Police Department.