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 Terry, petitioner Tarahrick Terry argues that he is eligible for a sentence reduction for his 2008 crack‑cocaine conviction.
The Fair Sentencing Act of 2010 (Section 2) increased the crack‑cocaine quantity thresholds, reducing the crack‑to‑powder ratio from 100‑to‑1 to 18‑to‑1.
Under the 1986 law, crack‑cocaine sentences were about 50 % longer than those for powder cocaine.
The First Step Act provides for sentence reductions, with an average reduction of almost six years.
The District Court sentenced Terry to 188 months, the bottom of the career‑offender guideline range.
The case was argued on May 4, 2021 and decided on June 14, 2021.
- [1] 742aa0870dbc9d0f376c-r1-94805387e04969a2.pdf, p. 2
- [2] 742aa0870dbc9d0f376c-r1-94805387e04969a2.pdf, p. 14
- [3] 742aa0870dbc9d0f376c-r1-94805387e04969a2.pdf, p. 14
- [4] 742aa0870dbc9d0f376c-r1-94805387e04969a2.pdf, p. 18
- [5] 742aa0870dbc9d0f376c-r1-94805387e04969a2.pdf, p. 6
- [6] 742aa0870dbc9d0f376c-r1-94805387e04969a2.pdf, p. 2
Background and question before the Court
The Act includes two base penalties that depend on drug quantity: a 5‑year mandatory minimum (triggered by 5 g of crack or 500 g of powder) and a 10‑year mandatory minimum (triggered by 50 g of crack or 5 kg of powder).
The central legal question is whether the phrase “statutory penalties” in the Fair Sentencing Act refers to sentencing ranges or to the crack‑quantity thresholds.
According to Amicus Curiae (Adam K. Mortara), according to Amicus Curiae (Adam K. Mortara), amicus Mortara argues that “statutory penalties” means the sentencing range, but Section 2 of the Fair Sentencing Act did not modify any sentencing ranges; it only raised the crack‑quantity thresholds.
What each side argues
Petitioner (Tarahrick Terry)
According to Petitioner Terry, petitioner contends that he is eligible to receive a sentence reduction for his 2008 crack‑cocaine conviction.
United States Government
According to United States Government, the Government argues that 404(b) categorically prohibits resentencing, not merely interpreting the effect of Sections 2 and 3 of the Fair Sentencing Act.
Amicus Curiae (Adam K. Mortara)
According to Amicus Curiae (Adam K. Mortara), according to Amicus Curiae (Adam K. Mortara), amicus Mortara maintains that “statutory penalties” refers to sentencing ranges, but Section 2 only changed crack‑quantity thresholds.
Bipartisan Sponsors of the First Step Act
According to Bipartisan sponsors of the First Step Act, bipartisan sponsors submitted an amicus brief urging the Court to reject the petitioner’s argument.
Counsel for Petitioner (Andrew L. Adler)
According to Mr. Adler, Adler argued that the sentencing ratio could affect all offenders, including career offenders, because of the anchoring effect of the unenhanced guideline range.
Deputy Solicitor General (Eric J. Feigin)
According to Mr. Feigin, Feigin contended that the statutory language fits Congress’s goal of targeting the group of offenders whose sentences were likely affected by the discredited 100‑to‑1 ratio.
What happened at oral argument
Chief Justice Roberts asked whether the statutory language is unambiguous regarding the phrase “statutory penalties.”
Chief Justice Roberts asked about the practical need to apply the First Step Act to subsection (c) given the retroactive sentencing guidelines.
Justice Thomas asked whether the statutory penalty for the petitioner was modified by the Fair Sentencing Act.
Justice Alito asked whether the clause “statutory penalties for which were modified by Section 2 or 3” modifies the violation or the statute itself.
Justice Kagan asked whether Congress would have wanted lower‑level offenders to miss out on the benefit of the statute.
Justice Breyer asked why the government argued the position it took.
Justice Sotomayor asked for confirmation that the statement just made reflected the government’s position.
- [1] ae6bef72b3e4d63dc057-r1-5a454a7240b1e92b.pdf, p. 8
- [2] ae6bef72b3e4d63dc057-r1-5a454a7240b1e92b.pdf, p. 9
- [3] ae6bef72b3e4d63dc057-r1-5a454a7240b1e92b.pdf, p. 10
- [4] ae6bef72b3e4d63dc057-r1-5a454a7240b1e92b.pdf, p. 16
- [5] ae6bef72b3e4d63dc057-r1-5a454a7240b1e92b.pdf, p. 24
- [6] ae6bef72b3e4d63dc057-r1-5a454a7240b1e92b.pdf, p. 66
- [7] ae6bef72b3e4d63dc057-r1-5a454a7240b1e92b.pdf, p. 68
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.
- 742aa0870dbc9d0f376c-r1-94805387e04969a2.pdfopinion
- ae6bef72b3e4d63dc057-r1-5a454a7240b1e92b.pdforal argument transcript
Guide generated September 28, 2026. Automated validation accepted this version.