This educational guide is based on the linked primary sources. It is not a Court publication, is not affiliated with the Court, and is not legal advice.
In brief
Overview
According to Respondent, the dispute centers on whether a district court can deviate from Congress’s sentencing ratio for crack versus powder cocaine.
The Government argues that judges must follow the individualized sentencing requirements of 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) in every case.
Background and question before the Court
Oral argument began at 11:06 a.m. before the Supreme Court of the United States.
According to Chief Justice Roberts, chief Justice Roberts announced that the Court would hear argument in case 06‑6330, Kimbrough v. United States.
Justice Kennedy asked whether Congress could have mandated the result and the rationale that the Fourth Circuit used here.
Justice Kennedy further asked whether the district court must be able to disregard the commission’s policy in every case that comes before it.
According to Justice Stevens, justice Stevens questioned whether the case might be controlled by *Neal v. United States*.
Justice Stevens asked about the proportion of crack‑related sentences that are imposed at the mandatory minimum.
- [1] 9bc13148cb76fce69456-r1-c25a732096714a4f.pdf, p. 1
- [2] 9bc13148cb76fce69456-r1-c25a732096714a4f.pdf, p. 3
- [3] 9bc13148cb76fce69456-r1-c25a732096714a4f.pdf, p. 4
- [4] 9bc13148cb76fce69456-r1-c25a732096714a4f.pdf, p. 20
- [5] 9bc13148cb76fce69456-r1-c25a732096714a4f.pdf, p. 23
- [6] 9bc13148cb76fce69456-r1-c25a732096714a4f.pdf, p. 38
What each side argues
Petitioner (Derrick Kimbrough)
Mr. Dreeben argued that the petitioner’s position is consistent with reading statutes both for what they say and for what they mean.
According to Mr. Dreeben, mr. Dreeben said he is not aware that Congress has legislated in this area after *Booker*.
According to Mr. Dreeben, mr. Dreeben described the sentencing scheme as being done in a logically proportional manner.
According to Mr. Nachmanoff, mr. Nachmanoff noted that roughly 70 percent of crack sentences are imposed at the mandatory minimum or just above it.
Respondent (United States)
The Government contended that 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) requires individualized sentencing and that judges must follow its mandates and calculate the advisory Guidelines correctly in every case.
According to Respondent, the United States asked whether a district court can reasonably disagree with Congress concerning the ratio between quantity‑based sentences for crack and powder cocaine.
What happened at oral argument
Oral argument began at 11:06 a.m. before the Supreme Court.
According to Chief Justice Roberts, chief Justice Roberts announced that the Court would hear argument in case 06‑6330, Kimbrough v. United States.
Justice Kennedy asked whether Congress could have mandated the result and rationale used by the Fourth Circuit.
According to Justice Kennedy, justice Kennedy also questioned whether the district court must be able to disregard the commission’s policy in every case.
According to Justice Stevens, justice Stevens raised the possibility that the case is controlled by *Neal v. United States*.
Justice Stevens asked about the percentage of crack sentences that are imposed at the mandatory minimum.
- [1] 9bc13148cb76fce69456-r1-c25a732096714a4f.pdf, p. 1
- [2] 9bc13148cb76fce69456-r1-c25a732096714a4f.pdf, p. 3
- [3] 9bc13148cb76fce69456-r1-c25a732096714a4f.pdf, p. 4
- [4] 9bc13148cb76fce69456-r1-c25a732096714a4f.pdf, p. 20
- [5] 9bc13148cb76fce69456-r1-c25a732096714a4f.pdf, p. 23
- [6] 9bc13148cb76fce69456-r1-c25a732096714a4f.pdf, p. 38
What the Court decided
Why it matters
Terms to know
No glossary terms are available for this guide.
Primary sources
Read the source materials on the official site or open the immutable repository copy used for this guide.
- 9bc13148cb76fce69456-r1-c25a732096714a4f.pdforal argument transcript
Guide generated September 22, 2026. Automated validation accepted this version.