October Term 2011 · Docket 11-5683
Does the Fair Sentencing Act apply to pending cases?
the sides that brought the case seek new sentencing rules. The government demands strict statutory adherence.
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
the sides that brought the case claim the new law implies immediate application to all pending cases.
The government asserts the statute requires an express statement for retroactive changes.
Justices questioned the relevance of the Dictionary Act to this interpretation.
Read the official transcript for this argument · Official argument details
Sources used for this argument breakdown
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 15, lines 41-1 — Transcript, file page 15, lines 41-1
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 31, lines 33-41 — Transcript, file page 31, lines 33-41
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 19-49 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 19-49
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 51-13 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 51-13
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 7-17 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 7-17
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 31-35 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 31-35
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 56, lines 49-21 — Transcript, file page 56, lines 49-21
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 3-15 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 3-15
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 39-45 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 39-45
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 51-7 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 51-7
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 27-37 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 27-37
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 43-45 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 43-45
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 49-49 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 49-49
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 27-33 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 27-33
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 3-17 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 3-17
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 45-47 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 45-47
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 51-3 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 51-3
A citizen's guide to the whole case
What this case is about
The Fair Sentencing Act changed drug sentencing laws. the sides that brought the case argue these changes apply to pending cases. The government argues the law requires explicit text for such changes.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 15, lines 41-1 — Transcript, file page 15, lines 41-1
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 31, lines 33-41 — Transcript, file page 31, lines 33-41
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 19-49 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 19-49
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 56, lines 49-21 — Transcript, file page 56, lines 49-21
How the case got here
The Supreme Court heard oral argument in this case on April 17, 2012.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 7-17 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 7-17
What each side wants
the sides that brought the case want the new sentencing rules to apply to their pending cases.
The government wants the old sentencing rules to remain in effect.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 15, lines 41-1 — Transcript, file page 15, lines 41-1
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 31, lines 33-41 — Transcript, file page 31, lines 33-41
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 19-49 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 19-49
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 56, lines 49-21 — Transcript, file page 56, lines 49-21
What each side says
the sides that brought the case argue the new law implies Congress intended immediate application.
The government argues the statute requires an express statement for retroactive changes.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 15, lines 41-1 — Transcript, file page 15, lines 41-1
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 31, lines 33-41 — Transcript, file page 31, lines 33-41
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 19-49 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 19-49
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 56, lines 49-21 — Transcript, file page 56, lines 49-21
What the justices asked
Justice Scalia asked if the argument relies on a specific footnote.
Chief Justice Roberts asked why Congress should not follow its own statutory standards.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 51-13 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 51-13
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 31-35 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 31-35
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 3-15 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 3-15
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 39-45 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 39-45
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 51-7 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 51-7
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 27-37 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 27-37
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 43-45 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 43-45
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 49-49 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 49-49
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 27-33 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 27-33
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 3-17 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 3-17
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 45-47 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 45-47
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 51-3 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 51-3
Why it matters
This dispute determines whether new sentencing laws apply to pending cases. It affects how courts interpret legislative intent for retroactive changes. It shapes the balance between statutory text and implied intent.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 15, lines 41-1 — Transcript, file page 15, lines 41-1
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 31, lines 33-41 — Transcript, file page 31, lines 33-41
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 19-49 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 19-49
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 56, lines 49-21 — Transcript, file page 56, lines 49-21
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 4, lines 51-13 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 51-13
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 7-17 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 7-17
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 31-35 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 31-35
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 3-15 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 3-15
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 39-45 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 39-45
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 51-7 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 51-7
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 27-37 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 27-37
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 43-45 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 43-45
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 49-49 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 49-49
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 27-33 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 27-33
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 3-17 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 3-17
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 45-47 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 45-47
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 51-3 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 51-3
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 15, lines 41-1 — Transcript, file page 15, lines 41-1
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 31, lines 33-41 — Transcript, file page 31, lines 33-41
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 19-49 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 19-49
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 56, lines 49-21 — Transcript, file page 56, lines 49-21
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 15, lines 41-1 — Transcript, file page 15, lines 41-1
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 31, lines 33-41 — Transcript, file page 31, lines 33-41
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 19-49 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 19-49
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 56, lines 49-21 — Transcript, file page 56, lines 49-21
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.