Judges can consider changes in law and good/bad behavior after conviction to reduce sentence under the First Step Act
The case is Concepcion vs United States
In 2018, the federal government passed the First Step Act to reduce the sentences for certain crimes (particularly minor drug crimes). The law is retroactive, meaning a prisoner can get a reduction in their sentence as if the First Step Act were in effect at the time they were originally sentenced to prison.
Between some prisoners' convictions and the First Step Act, there have been other changes in law and sentencing guidelines that reduced sentences. Some of those were not retroactive. In addition, some prisoners exhibited good (or bad) behavior in prison. The question for the court is: When a prisoner applies to a sentence reduction under the First Step Act, can they get the benefit of changes in law and sentencing guidelines, as well as behavior in prison between their original sentence and the First Step Act?
SCOTUS said yes: At the re-sentencing hearing, the judge may consider intervening changes in law and sentencing guidelines, as well as the behavior of the prisoner (good or bad). The judge is not required to consider those factors, but they may.
The decision is 5-4.
Sotomayor wrote the opinion, joined by Thomas, Breyer, Kagan, and Gorsuch.
Kavanaugh wrote the dissent, joined by Roberts, Alito, and Barrett.
Federal government has to prove beyond a reasonable doubt the defendant doctors knew their prescription of opioids was unauthorized.
The case is Ruan vs United States
It is a crime for doctors to knowingly or intentionally prescribe a controlled substance, "except as authorized". The federal government uses this law to prosecute doctors who prescribe large amounts of opioids and other painkillers. In this case, the defendant prescribed a lot of painkillers--much more than is normal for doctors to prescribe. The state medical board reviewed the case and declined to revoke the doctor's license. The federal government prosecuted the doctors under this law.
The question for the court is what the federal government has to prove under this law. The federal government says that it needs to prove 1. The doctor knowingly or intentionally prescribed pills and 2. The prescriptions not what doctors would normally do. The defendants agree on point 1, but they argue that the government must also prove that the defendant knew the prescriptions were not authorized. Alternatively, if the government only needs to prove the prescription was not normal, the doctor can present good faith belief as a defense.
The difference is the doctor's mental state. If a doctor really thinks they should prescribe a lot of painkillers, even though most doctors disagree, should the doctor go to prison? Should it matter that the prescriptions were unusual but not enough to get the doctor's license revoked?
SCOTUS said the government must prove the defendant knew the prescriptions were unauthorized. Alito wrote a concurrence, joined by Thomas and Barrett. They would allow the defendant to show their good faith belief as a defense.
The decision is 6-3-0.
Breyer wrote the opinion, joined by Roberts, Sotomayor, Kagan, Gorsuch, and Kavanaugh.
Alito wrote a concurrence, joined by Thomas and Barrett.
---------------
Personal thoughts:
The re-sentencing case is good for reducing the harm of the federal penal system. Unfortunately, the judge only may (but is not required to) consider intervening changes in law and guidelines, as well as behavior. Because these considerations are discretionary, I suspect it will lead to greater racial disparities in re-sentencing. But it will probably also lead to a reduction in sentences for non-white people overall. Given that the decision is 5-4, it may have been a necessary compromise to get Thomas and Gorsuch aboard. The decision looks overall good.
The drug case I am not sure about. Theoretically, it seems like Alito's position is better, but I think it comes from underestimating the harm that prosecutorial discretion can cause. Prosecutors can ruin a doctor's life just by starting a non-frivolous investigation against them. When it is up to the doctor to prove that deviation from standard practice is in good faith (or go to prison), the practical effect is that they will not deviate. That sounds good for opioids, but it may have a lot of unintended negative consequences that I am not competent to speak about.
The case is Concepcion vs United States
In 2018, the federal government passed the First Step Act to reduce the sentences for certain crimes (particularly minor drug crimes). The law is retroactive, meaning a prisoner can get a reduction in their sentence as if the First Step Act were in effect at the time they were originally sentenced to prison.
Between some prisoners' convictions and the First Step Act, there have been other changes in law and sentencing guidelines that reduced sentences. Some of those were not retroactive. In addition, some prisoners exhibited good (or bad) behavior in prison. The question for the court is: When a prisoner applies to a sentence reduction under the First Step Act, can they get the benefit of changes in law and sentencing guidelines, as well as behavior in prison between their original sentence and the First Step Act?
SCOTUS said yes: At the re-sentencing hearing, the judge may consider intervening changes in law and sentencing guidelines, as well as the behavior of the prisoner (good or bad). The judge is not required to consider those factors, but they may.
The decision is 5-4.
Sotomayor wrote the opinion, joined by Thomas, Breyer, Kagan, and Gorsuch.
Kavanaugh wrote the dissent, joined by Roberts, Alito, and Barrett.
Federal government has to prove beyond a reasonable doubt the defendant doctors knew their prescription of opioids was unauthorized.
The case is Ruan vs United States
It is a crime for doctors to knowingly or intentionally prescribe a controlled substance, "except as authorized". The federal government uses this law to prosecute doctors who prescribe large amounts of opioids and other painkillers. In this case, the defendant prescribed a lot of painkillers--much more than is normal for doctors to prescribe. The state medical board reviewed the case and declined to revoke the doctor's license. The federal government prosecuted the doctors under this law.
The question for the court is what the federal government has to prove under this law. The federal government says that it needs to prove 1. The doctor knowingly or intentionally prescribed pills and 2. The prescriptions not what doctors would normally do. The defendants agree on point 1, but they argue that the government must also prove that the defendant knew the prescriptions were not authorized. Alternatively, if the government only needs to prove the prescription was not normal, the doctor can present good faith belief as a defense.
The difference is the doctor's mental state. If a doctor really thinks they should prescribe a lot of painkillers, even though most doctors disagree, should the doctor go to prison? Should it matter that the prescriptions were unusual but not enough to get the doctor's license revoked?
SCOTUS said the government must prove the defendant knew the prescriptions were unauthorized. Alito wrote a concurrence, joined by Thomas and Barrett. They would allow the defendant to show their good faith belief as a defense.
The decision is 6-3-0.
Breyer wrote the opinion, joined by Roberts, Sotomayor, Kagan, Gorsuch, and Kavanaugh.
Alito wrote a concurrence, joined by Thomas and Barrett.
---------------
Personal thoughts:
The re-sentencing case is good for reducing the harm of the federal penal system. Unfortunately, the judge only may (but is not required to) consider intervening changes in law and guidelines, as well as behavior. Because these considerations are discretionary, I suspect it will lead to greater racial disparities in re-sentencing. But it will probably also lead to a reduction in sentences for non-white people overall. Given that the decision is 5-4, it may have been a necessary compromise to get Thomas and Gorsuch aboard. The decision looks overall good.
The drug case I am not sure about. Theoretically, it seems like Alito's position is better, but I think it comes from underestimating the harm that prosecutorial discretion can cause. Prosecutors can ruin a doctor's life just by starting a non-frivolous investigation against them. When it is up to the doctor to prove that deviation from standard practice is in good faith (or go to prison), the practical effect is that they will not deviate. That sounds good for opioids, but it may have a lot of unintended negative consequences that I am not competent to speak about.