PARTIAL AFFIRMATION COUNTS IF THE ONLY DIFFERENCE IS SEMANTICAL, SEE COMMENTS
https://ballotpedia.org/Pulsifer_v._United_States
Background
Pulsifer v. United States is a case involving the First Step Act of 2018 and 18 U.S.C. § 3553(f)(1). The justices were asked to interpret the federal sentencing laws that allow some nonviolent offenders convicted of drug crimes to avoid mandatory minimum sentences. The provision of the sentencing law requires that a convicted defendant “does not have — (A) more than 4 criminal history points, excluding any criminal history points resulting from a 1-point offense, as determined under the sentencing guidelines; (B) a prior 3-point offense, as determined under the sentencing guidelines; and (C) a prior 2-point violent offense, as determined under the sentencing guidelines.” In order to calculate a defendant's criminal history points, the United States Sentencing Commission adds points using the following guidelines:
3 points for each prior sentence of imprisonment exceeding one year and one month
2 points for each prior sentence of imprisonment of at least sixty days not counted in (a)
1 point for each prior sentence not counted in (a) or (b), up to a total of 4 points for this subsection
2 points if the defendant committed the instant offense while under any criminal justice sentence, including probation, parole, supervised release, imprisonment, work release, or escape status
1 point for each prior sentence resulting from a conviction of a crime of violence that did not receive any points under (a), (b), or (c) above because such sentence was treated as a single sentence, up to a total of 3 points for this subsection
Pulslifer has asked whether a defendant is ineligible for relief under the sentencing guidelines if the defendant’s criminal history includes any of the disqualifying criteria or if they are ineligible only if all criteria are included.
The provision has been reviewed by the Seventh, Eighth, and Ninth Circuit Courts. The Seventh and Eighth Circuits found that the and in the provision meant or, so any disqualifying criteria in a convicted defendant’s criminal record would render them ineligible for relief. The Ninth Circuit found that and meant and, requiring all disqualifying criteria in a convicted defendant’s criminal record to be present to render them ineligible for relief. The Eleventh Circuit Court will also review the provision.
Related questions
🏅 Top traders
| # | Name | Total profit |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Ṁ426 | |
| 2 | Ṁ54 | |
| 3 | Ṁ8 | |
| 4 | Ṁ8 |
What if SCOTUS decides to affirm in part and reverse in part? How will this question resolve?
It seems to me that there are 3 potential interpretations the court could agree with:
1. "and" means "and" and "does not have" does not distribute,
2. "and" means "or", or
3. "does not have" distributes and "and" means "and" (the is equivalent to 2 in effect)
Pulsifer is from the 8th circuit and it affirmed the district court's decision for 3. The government has now abandoned 3 and argued for 2 before SCOTUS. It seems unlikely that the court will fully affirm the 8th circuit decision given that the government didn't argue for that.
For the nerds
At issue before SCOTUS:
A law has a section of the format:
```
does not have—
(A)...;
(B)...; and
(C)...;
```
Does it mean:
1. !(A && B && C)
2. !(A || B || C)
3. (!A && !B && !C)
2 and 3 are logically equivalent
The government now wants 2, Pulsifer wants 1, the 8th circuit agreed with the district court's 3 which the government wanted but not anymore.
@CodeandSolder yes it is logically equivalent and equivalent in effect but suppose SCOTUS agrees with 1, it will most likely still affirm in part because the 8th circuit say "and" means "and" but reverse in part because it doesn't agree with the "distributes" part.
It might be better to define the resolution criteria by effect:
YES means Pulsifer DOES NOT qualify for safety valve relief (2 or 3, 8th circuit agreed with 3)
NO means Pulsifer DOES qualify for safety valve relief (1)
What do you think?
@CodeandSolder https://scholarlycommons.law.emory.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1006&context=elj-online
On the other hand. This article says "The Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts includes decisions that affirm in part and reverse in part as affirmations."
But if we apply that standard here, ruling either 1 or 3 can be affirmations but the effects are opposite which seems odd.
Thank you for running these markets. These are weird edge cases and picking either options seems rather arbitrary, much like this case itself.
@Calvin6b82 I feel like the correct solution is to treat 2 and 3 as the same, as there is no difference on any level, it's language interpretation luckily matching the underlying logic, I think the revised criteria are the right way to go
Also: how many more cases like that will it take to create a commission to go through all the law and clean up missing oxford commas, inaccurate logical operators, and other acts of sloppiness?
@CodeandSolder you should make a market for that 😂 "Will Congress create a commission to clean up mistakes in statues before 20XX"
This case will probably end up being the court drawing the boundary on what they're willing/allowed to consider when making a decision. It's really obvious by the vibe of the law that Congress meant "or". It's funny to me that the House version had "or" and the Senate version had "and" but for some reason the final version ended up with the wrong one.