October Term 2016 · Docket 15-9260
Can a judge reduce a mandatory 30-year sentence to one day?
The dispute centers on whether a judge can lower a mandatory 30-year sentence to one day.
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 side that brought the case argued judges need discretion to impose just sentences.
The government argued the statute mandates a specific consecutive term.
Justice Sotomayor questioned if a one-day sentence satisfies the law.
Justice Kagan questioned if a one-day sentence defeats the mandate.
Read the official transcript for this argument · Official argument details
Sources used for this argument breakdown
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 24, lines 46-16 — Transcript, file page 24, lines 46-16
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 18-46 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 18-46
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 50-6 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 50-6
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 8-16 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 8-16
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 14-22 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 14-22
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 40-42 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 40-42
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 10-26 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 10-26
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 34-44 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 34-44
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 32-12 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 32-12
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 4-14 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 4-14
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 16-20 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 16-20
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 24-26 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 24-26
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 32-32 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 32-32
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 10-18 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 10-18
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 42-42 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 42-42
A citizen's guide to the whole case
What this case is about
The case involves a defendant who received a mandatory 30-year sentence. He argues the judge should have discretion to reduce it. The government argues the statute requires the full term.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 24, lines 46-16 — Transcript, file page 24, lines 46-16
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 18-46 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 18-46
How the case got here
The Supreme Court heard oral argument in this case on February 28, 2017.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 8-16 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 8-16
What each side wants
the side that brought the case wants the Court to allow judges to reduce mandatory sentences.
The government wants the Court to enforce the mandatory 30-year sentence.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 24, lines 46-16 — Transcript, file page 24, lines 46-16
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 18-46 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 18-46
What each side says
the side that brought the case argues judges must have discretion to ensure just results.
The government argues Congress intended to remove judicial discretion for these crimes.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 24, lines 46-16 — Transcript, file page 24, lines 46-16
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 18-46 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 18-46
What the justices asked
Justice Sotomayor asked if a one-day sentence negates Congress's purpose.
Justice Kagan asked if a one-day sentence defeats the statutory mandate.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 50-6 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 50-6
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 14-22 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 14-22
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 40-42 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 40-42
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 10-26 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 10-26
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 34-44 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 34-44
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 32-12 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 32-12
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 4-14 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 4-14
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 16-20 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 16-20
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 24-26 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 24-26
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 32-32 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 32-32
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 10-18 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 10-18
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 42-42 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 42-42
Why it matters
This case determines if judges can override mandatory minimum sentences. It affects the balance between legislative intent and judicial discretion. It impacts how courts handle mandatory sentencing statutes.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 24, lines 46-16 — Transcript, file page 24, lines 46-16
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 18-46 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 18-46
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 3, lines 50-6 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 50-6
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 8-16 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 8-16
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 14-22 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 14-22
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 40-42 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 40-42
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 10-26 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 10-26
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 34-44 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 34-44
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 32-12 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 32-12
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 4-14 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 4-14
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 16-20 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 16-20
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 24-26 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 24-26
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 32-32 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 32-32
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 10-18 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 10-18
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 42-42 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 42-42
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 24, lines 46-16 — Transcript, file page 24, lines 46-16
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 18-46 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 18-46
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 24, lines 46-16 — Transcript, file page 24, lines 46-16
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 18-46 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 18-46
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.