October Term 2010 · Docket 09-1533
Does the federal crack cocaine statute cover all smokeable cocaine base forms?
The dispute centers on whether the mandatory minimum penalty for cocaine base applies to all smokeable forms or only rock-hard crack.
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
Andrew Pincus argued the statute covers all offenses involving cocaine base, not just crack.
Saharsky argued that freebase, coca paste, and crack are chemically identical and smokeable.
Justice Roberts noted the statute refers to a mixture containing cocaine base.
Justice Scalia questioned whether the term crack excludes substances not made in a specific manner.
Read the official transcript for this argument · Official argument details
Sources used for this argument breakdown
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 10, lines 21-29 — Transcript, file page 10, lines 21-29
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 11, lines 19-19 — Transcript, file page 11, lines 19-19
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 11, lines 39-3 — Transcript, file page 11, lines 39-3
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 12, lines 19-43 — Transcript, file page 12, lines 19-43
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 25, lines 47-11 — Transcript, file page 25, lines 47-11
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 19-15 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 19-15
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 7-17 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 7-17
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 17-31 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 17-31
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 5-13 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 5-13
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 3-9 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 3-9
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 39-41 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 39-41
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 47-3 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 47-3
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 11-11 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 11-11
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 27-45 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 27-45
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 9, lines 31-33 — Transcript, file page 9, lines 31-33
A citizen's guide to the whole case
What this case is about
The case tests the scope of a federal drug statute. the side that brought the case argues the law covers all smokeable cocaine base. The government argues the law targets only rock-hard crack.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 25, lines 47-11 — Transcript, file page 25, lines 47-11
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 19-15 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 19-15
How the case got here
The Supreme Court heard oral argument in this case on February 28, 2011.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 7-17 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 7-17
What each side wants
the side that brought the case wants the Court to apply the mandatory minimum penalty to all smokeable cocaine base forms.
The government wants the Court to limit the mandatory minimum penalty to rock-hard crack cocaine only.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 25, lines 47-11 — Transcript, file page 25, lines 47-11
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 19-15 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 19-15
What each side says
the side that brought the case argues that Congress did not limit the statute to one specific form of cocaine base.
The government argues that the statute specifically targets substances with the characteristics of crack cocaine.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 25, lines 47-11 — Transcript, file page 25, lines 47-11
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 19-15 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 19-15
What the justices asked
Justice Alito asked how a judge should instruct a jury to determine if a substance is crack.
Justice Scalia asked whether the term crack applies to all forms or just rock-hard substances made in a specific way.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 10, lines 21-29 — Transcript, file page 10, lines 21-29
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 11, lines 19-19 — Transcript, file page 11, lines 19-19
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 11, lines 39-3 — Transcript, file page 11, lines 39-3
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 12, lines 19-43 — Transcript, file page 12, lines 19-43
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 17-31 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 17-31
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 5-13 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 5-13
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 3-9 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 3-9
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 39-41 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 39-41
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 47-3 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 47-3
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 11-11 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 11-11
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 27-45 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 27-45
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 9, lines 31-33 — Transcript, file page 9, lines 31-33
Why it matters
The outcome determines which drug offenses trigger severe mandatory minimum prison sentences. It defines the legal boundary between different forms of cocaine base for federal sentencing.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 25, lines 47-11 — Transcript, file page 25, lines 47-11
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 19-15 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 19-15
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 21-29 — Transcript, file page 10, lines 21-29
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 11, lines 19-19 — Transcript, file page 11, lines 19-19
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 11, lines 39-3 — Transcript, file page 11, lines 39-3
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 12, lines 19-43 — Transcript, file page 12, lines 19-43
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 7-17 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 7-17
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 17-31 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 17-31
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 5-13 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 5-13
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 3-9 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 3-9
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 39-41 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 39-41
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 47-3 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 47-3
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 11-11 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 11-11
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 27-45 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 27-45
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 9, lines 31-33 — Transcript, file page 9, lines 31-33
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 25, lines 47-11 — Transcript, file page 25, lines 47-11
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 19-15 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 19-15
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 25, lines 47-11 — Transcript, file page 25, lines 47-11
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 19-15 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 19-15
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.