Brief filed: 09/23/2024
Documents
Hewitt v. United States
United States Supreme Court; Case No. No. 23-1002
Prior Decision
United States v. Duffey, 92 F.4th 304 (5th Cir. Feb. 2, 2024)
Argument(s)
The statutory text and logical structure of the First Step Act (FSA) dictate that its sentencing reforms in sections 401 and 403 apply to defendants who were sentenced prior to the Act’s passage but whose sentences were vacated and remanded for plenary sentencing after the Act’s effective date. The rule adopted by the Fifth Circuit below is not only contrary to the language of the statute but is also irrational. A vacated sentence has long been understood to be a legal nullity requiring the district court to sentence the individual anew. Therefore, there are no finality concerns to protect when applying the FSA’s current, less punitive sentencing scheme to defendants following vacatur. Alternatively, if the Court regards sections 401 and 403 as having two plausible interpretations, the rule of lenity compels the Court to adopt Petitioners’ interpretation of the Act.
Author(s)
Barbara E. Bergman, NACDL (Co-Chair Amicus Committee), Tucson, AZ; Kevin Poloncarz, Julia Barrero, and Jared Gilmour, Covington & Burling LLP, San Francisco, CA; Clark M. Neilly III, Cato Institute, Washington, DC; Mary Price and Shanna Rifkin, FAMM, Washington, DC; Shana-Tara O’Toole, Due Process Institute, Washington, DC; Emma Andersson, Nathan Freed Wessler, Yasmin Cader, ACLU, New York, NY; Adriana C. Piñon, ACLU of Texas, Houston, TX; Cecillia D. Wang, ACLU, San Francisco, CA; David D. Cole, ACLU, Washington, DC.
