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 Petitioner, dePierre v. United States concerns how the statute’s terms “cocaine” and “cocaine base” should be understood.
The case also discusses how crack cocaine is produced and whether it is chemically distinct from other cocaine forms.
Background and question before the Court
The legal question is how to distinguish “cocaine” from “cocaine base” under the statute.
The question also involves whether “freebase” or “crack” forms fall within the meaning of “cocaine base.”
What each side argues
Petitioner Position
Petitioner argues that “cocaine base” should be read as meaning substances distinct from the chemical formula C17H21NO4.
According to Ms. Saharsky, petitioner says Congress defined many substances but singled out one, indicating a specific legislative intent.
According to Ms. Saharsky, petitioner contends that the paste (freebase/crack) can be smoked and is therefore more addictive than powder cocaine.
Respondent Position
Source-limited. The record does not yet support a complete account.
What happened at oral argument
According to Chief Justice Roberts, chief Justice Roberts announced the hearing of DePierre v. United States.
Justices asked questions about whether “cocaine base” excludes freebase, how a jury should be instructed, and the chemical nature of cocaine in a leaf.
The transcript includes a factual description that crack is produced by converting cocaine powder into a rock‑like form.
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.
- 2250da699b72d35e4ca5-r1-afb4742b496cd966.pdforal argument transcript
Guide generated September 23, 2026. Automated validation accepted this version.