Unanimous Supreme Court Ruling Eases Prison Sentences for Some Gun Crimes

U.S. Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson poses for an official portrait in Washington on Oct. 7, 2022. Alex Wong/Getty Images

Some people convicted of gun crimes can spend less time in prison, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled on June 16.

Sentences for certain gun crimes can run concurrently, the nation’s top court said in a unanimous decision, siding with the convict.

“Congress could certainly have designed the penalty scheme at issue here differently. But Congress did not do any of these things. And we must implement the design Congress chose,” Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, a Biden appointee, wrote in the ruling (pdf).

The case involves two subsections of 18 U.S.C. 924. Subsection (c) outlines offenses and penalties, and states that “no term of imprisonment imposed on a person under this subsection shall run concurrently with any other term of imprisonment imposed on the person.” Subsection (j), which was added more recently, outlines other offenses and corresponding penalties. It does not include language about forbidding concurrent sentences.

District courts generally have discretion as to whether prison sentences run concurrently or consecutively. Some laws forbid concurrent sentences in certain cases.

Efrain Lora, the person who brought the case, was convicted of aiding and abetting a person who is using or carrying a firearm during a drug trafficking or violent crime and who then “causes the death of a person through the use of a firearm.” Lora was also convicted of conspiracy to distribute drugs.

Lora and three others who trafficked cocaine murdered a rival drug dealer in 2002 in New York City over a dispute regarding territory.

When handing down Lora’s sentence, U.S. District Judge Paul Gardephe, a George W. Bush appointee, cited a law that bars concurrent sentences for crimes that include one of the crimes for which Lora was convicted. He sentenced Lora to 25 years in prison for the conspiracy count, followed by five more years for the other crime. An appeals court affirmed the decision.

Lora argued that his sentences could have run concurrently, arguing that the aiding and abetting offense was not covered by the law Gardephe cited.

U.S. officials disagreed, arguing the lower courts got it correct. They said the Supreme Court should not review the matter.

All nine members of the court sided with Lora.

“Subsection (c)’s consecutive-sentence mandate applies only to the terms of imprisonment prescribed within subsection (c). A sentence imposed under subsection (j) does not qualify,” Jackson, the newest member of the court, wrote. “Subsection (j) is located outside subsection (c) and does not call for imposing any sentence from subsection (c).”

“Combining the two subsections would set them on a collision course; indeed, in some cases, the maximum sentence would be lower than the minimum sentence,” she also said.

The ruling vacated the prison term and remanded the case for new sentencing.

Lawrence Rosenberg, part of the team representing Lora, cheered the ruling.

“We are thrilled that the Court preserved the longstanding default of discretion in criminal sentencing, restoring courts’ discretion to impose either concurrent or consecutive sentences in this case and others like it,“ Rosenberg said in a statement to news outlets. ”The Court’s decision to enforce the plain text that Congress enacted will help ensure that a defendant’s sentence fits both the crime and the individual.”

The U.S. Department of Justice has not commented on the ruling and did not immediately reply to an inquiry on Saturday.

Erica Ross, a U.S. lawyer, had told the court that subsection (j) incorporated subsection (c) and should thus be treated as the same in terms of sentencing. But multiple judges questioned that premise.

“Isn’t the truth of the matter here that Congress just made a mistake?” Justice Elena Kagan, an Obama appointee, said.