October Term 2007 · Docket 06-6330
Can a judge reject the 100-to-1 crack sentencing ratio?
The dispute centers on whether district courts may impose lower sentences for crack cocaine offenses despite the statutory 100-to-1 quantity ratio.
Verified source milestones
- — An official oral-argument transcript was verified.
The arguments, in order
This case may have been argued more than once. Each entry below uses that session's official transcript. Later arguments do not erase earlier ones.
Argument 1 ·
What happened at the argument
Michael Nachmanoff argued the district court properly considered Section 3553(a) factors.
Paul Dreeben argued the statutory ratio reflects a coherent congressional judgment.
Justice Scalia questioned whether the Sentencing Commission should have acted more proportionately.
Justice Kennedy asked if Congress could have mandated the specific rationale used by the Fourth Circuit.
Read the official transcript for this argument · Official argument details
Sources used for this argument breakdown
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 10, lines 29-43 — Transcript, file page 10, lines 29-43
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 10, lines 3-7 — Transcript, file page 10, lines 3-7
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 11, lines 47-11 — Transcript, file page 11, lines 47-11
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 11, lines 7-23 — Transcript, file page 11, lines 7-23
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 23, lines 29-39 — Transcript, file page 23, lines 29-39
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 17-33 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 17-33
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 7-15 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 7-15
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 35-39 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 35-39
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 17-31 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 17-31
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 19-21 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 19-21
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 3-15 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 3-15
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 3-15 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 3-15
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 31-33 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 31-33
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 41-43 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 41-43
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 47-7 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 47-7
A citizen's guide to the whole case
What this case is about
Derrick Kimbrough challenges his federal sentence. He argues the district court properly exercised discretion under Section 3553(a). The government contends the statutory ratio mandates a specific sentencing structure.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 23, lines 29-39 — Transcript, file page 23, lines 29-39
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 17-33 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 17-33
How the case got here
The Supreme Court heard oral argument in this case on October 2, 2007.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 7-15 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 7-15
What each side wants
Kimbrough wants the Supreme Court to affirm the district court's lower sentence.
The United States wants the Supreme Court to reverse the lower sentence and uphold the statutory ratio.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 23, lines 29-39 — Transcript, file page 23, lines 29-39
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 17-33 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 17-33
What each side says
Kimbrough argues Section 3553(a) allows judges to consider individual circumstances over rigid ratios.
The United States argues the 100-to-1 ratio reflects a coherent congressional judgment that courts must respect.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 23, lines 29-39 — Transcript, file page 23, lines 29-39
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 17-33 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 17-33
What the justices asked
Justice Souter asked if the incoherence argument applies broadly to all sentencing ratios.
Justice Souter asked if any sentencing assumption other than the 100-to-1 ratio is unreasonable.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 10, lines 29-43 — Transcript, file page 10, lines 29-43
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 10, lines 3-7 — Transcript, file page 10, lines 3-7
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 11, lines 47-11 — Transcript, file page 11, lines 47-11
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 11, lines 7-23 — Transcript, file page 11, lines 7-23
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 35-39 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 35-39
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 17-31 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 17-31
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 19-21 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 19-21
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 3-15 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 3-15
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 3-15 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 3-15
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 31-33 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 31-33
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 41-43 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 41-43
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 47-7 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 47-7
Why it matters
This case determines whether federal judges retain discretion to deviate from the crack-to-powder cocaine sentencing ratio. It affects the consistency of federal drug sentencing nationwide. It shapes the balance between legislative mandates and judicial discretion in criminal punishment.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 23, lines 29-39 — Transcript, file page 23, lines 29-39
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 17-33 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 17-33
What happens next
This article currently covers the argument record. Use the official docket link for later case activity.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 10, lines 29-43 — Transcript, file page 10, lines 29-43
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 10, lines 3-7 — Transcript, file page 10, lines 3-7
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 11, lines 47-11 — Transcript, file page 11, lines 47-11
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 11, lines 7-23 — Transcript, file page 11, lines 7-23
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 7-15 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 7-15
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 35-39 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 35-39
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 17-31 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 17-31
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 19-21 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 19-21
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 3-15 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 3-15
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 3-15 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 3-15
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 31-33 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 31-33
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 41-43 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 41-43
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 47-7 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 47-7
Official Court provenance
Official docket and case history · Official Supreme Court oral-argument detail page
Title and summary sources
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 23, lines 29-39 — Transcript, file page 23, lines 29-39
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 17-33 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 17-33
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 23, lines 29-39 — Transcript, file page 23, lines 29-39
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 17-33 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 17-33
Revision history
- Revision 1 · Official Transcript ·
Correction: Rewritten to the concise citizen-facing editorial standard.
- Revision 2 · Official Transcript ·
Correction: Migrated to the dated official Court activity contract without model use.