We post news and comment on federal criminal justice issues, focused primarily on trial and post-conviction matters, legislative initiatives, and sentencing issues.

SCOTUS GRANTS REVIEW ON TWO CRIMINAL CASES

Last Friday, the Supreme Court agreed to review two federal criminal cases.

In the first case, the Court will consider the constitutionality of 8 U.S.C. § 1324(a)(1), which makes it a crime punishable by up to 10 years in prison to encourage or cause unauthorized immigrants to enter or reside in the United States.

Helaman Hansen was convicted for running a program that promised to help adult unauthorized immigrants become US citizens through adoption. On appeal, the 9th Circuit agreed that the statute violated the 1st Amendment because it is so broad that it would also apply to protected speech – for example, voicing support to a young illegal immigrant (OK, “undocumented” is the politically correct term, but then, if the immigrant were not here illegally, we wouldn’t be writing about this) that she not return to, say, Iceland, but instead fight to qualify for DACA is a federal criminal offense under § 1324(a)(1).

Maybe not the best illustration: stopping hordes of blond-haired blue-eyed people sneaking across our undefended borders is not our problem. Some, like a former President, even liked the idea.

Back to Mr. Hansen: The government appealed the 9th Circuit decision invalidating his conviction. 

Last week the Supreme Court granted review.

In a second case, the high court agreed to take an 18 USC § 924(c) case. Section 924(c) mandates a consecutive sentence of a certain minimum term when a gun is possessed or used in a drug trafficking offense or a violent crime.

Under 18 USC § 3584(a), a district court may impose either consecutive or concurrent sentences unless a statute requires otherwise. Section 924(c)(1)(D)(ii) of Title 18 requires consecutive sentences but only for sentences imposed “under this subsection.” Efrain Lora was convicted and sentenced under § 924(j), a different subsection that sets punishments where “a person… in the course of a violation of subsection (c), causes the death of a person through the use of a firearm.”

Curiously, § 924(c) includes no requirement that the sentence must be consecutive. This suggests that if an offender is going to use a gun in a violent crime, he should be sure to kill someone (and thus get a possibly better sentence).

Lora argued a district court has the discretion to impose concurrent sentences because § 924(j) creates a separate offense not subject to § 924(c)(1)(D)(ii).

The 2nd Circuit disagreed, holding that the district court was required to impose consecutive sentences because a § 924(j) counts as being “under” § 924(c).

The 3rd, 4th, 8th and 9th Circuits agree with the 2nd Circuit. The 10th and 11th do not. The question the Supreme Court granted review is whether § 924(c)(1)(D)(ii), which provides that “no term of imprisonment imposed… under this subsection shall run concurrently with any other term of imprisonment,” is triggered when a defendant is sentenced under § 924(j).

Both cases will be argued this term and decided by the end of June.

United States v. Hansen, Case No. 22-179 (certiorari granted December 9, 2022)

Lora v. United States, Case No 22-49 (certiorari granted December 9, 2022)

– Thomas L. Root