Dorsey v. United States
132 S. Ct. 2321
| SCOTUS | 2012Background
- Federal mandatory minimums for drug offenses historically matched crack and powder cocaine penalties at 100:1.
- Fair Sentencing Act (2010) lowered crack/powder penalties to 18:1 and increased crack thresholds, effective Aug. 3, 2010.
- Hill and Dorsey, pre-Act offenders, were sentenced after Aug. 3, 2010; Hill faced a 10-year minimum; Dorsey faced no minimum for small crack amounts under the Act.
- Questions: whether the new, lower minimums apply to pre-Act conduct when sentencing occurs post-Act, and how the interaction of the 1871 saving statute and the Sentencing Reform Act affects that result.
- The Court held that the Fair Sentencing Act’s new minimums apply to post-Act sentencing of pre-Act offenders, vacating appellate judgments and remanding for proceedings consistent with this ruling.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Do the Fair Sentencing Act’s new minimums apply to pre-Act offenses sentenced after Aug. 3, 2010? | Hill and Dorsey contend no, old minimums apply. | Government argues yes, new minimums may apply due to ex post facto concerns and Guideline updates. | Yes, Act applies to post-Act sentencing of pre-Act offenders. |
| How does the 1871 saving statute interact with applying new penalties to pre-Act offenses? | Saving statute preserves pre-Act penalties unless explicitly repealed. | Court should apply saving statute to avoid implied repeal. | Saving statute allows applying new penalties to pre-Act offenses when consistent with overall statutory framework. |
| What role do the Guidelines and emergency authority play in applying the Act to pre-Act offenders? | Guidelines amendments should track new minimums for consistency. | Emergency Guidelines amendments can be issued promptly to align with new penalties. | Guidelines can and should be amended to reflect the new minimums for post-Act sentencing. |
| Is it permissible to avoid disparities by applying old minimums to some pre-Act offenders? | Maintaining old minimums avoids triggering a sweeping change. | Applying old minimums creates new disparities and undermines uniformity. | No; applying new minimums promotes uniformity and proportionality across similar offenders. |
Key Cases Cited
- Warden v. Marrero, 417 U.S. 653 (1974) (saving statute context and implied repeal principles)
- Great Northern R. Co. v. United States, 208 U.S. 452 (1908) (background principle on implied repeal and later statutes)
- Marcello v. Bonds, 349 U.S. 302 (1955) (implied repeal analysis without magical words)
- Lockhart v. United States, 546 U.S. 142 (2005) (expressions of implied repeal standards in concurrence)
- Calder v. Bull, 3 U.S. 386 (1798) (early discussion of implied repeal concepts)