Supreme Court Unclear Who Should Benefit From Reduced Sentences

US Supreme Court justices struggled with how broadly to read a federal law meant to reduce harsh criminal sentences, with one saying the case was “really close.”

The question at the heart of arguments on Monday was whether the First Step Act’s reduced mandatory minimums apply to defendants originally sentenced before the law was enacted but later had the punishment vacated, or only to those who’ve never been sentenced.

The answer turns on the meaning of “imposed,” as the law applies retroactively to those who committed a crime before it came into force in 2018 but who haven’t yet been sentenced.

Justice Sonia Sotomayor said the term “imposed” is ambiguous because it can mean either a “historical act,” meaning whether a sentence was ever imposed, or a “continuing application,” meaning that a valid sentence is in place.

Because of that, the court should consider the context in which the law was passed, Sotomayor said. She said it was clearly meant to help defendants who faced what Congress saw as unfair sentencing.

But Justice Brett Kavanaugh said context doesn’t resolve the case.

Congress wanted to apply the reduced sentences retroactively, but there was a limit because lawmakers didn’t open it up to everyone, Kavanaugh said.

“I think this is a really close case,” he said.

The case is likely to affect a small number of defendants but it will be critical for those to whom it applies.

Tony Hewitt and his co-defendants were originally sentenced to more than 300 years for a series of bank robberies in 2008. Most of that time was for mandatory 25-year stacked sentences, that must be served back-to-back.

Under the First Step Act, the stacked sentences would be reduced to five-year consecutive terms.

The law “can reduce an offender’s sentence by decades,” said Justice Department lawyer Masha Hansford. The Biden administration agrees with the defendants that they should benefit from the law.

The justices appointed Dechert’s Michael McGinley to argue the other side.

The case is one of several First Step Act matters that the justices have considered in recent terms.

The case is Hewitt v. United States, U.S., No. 23-1002, argued 1/13/25.