How important can the meaning of a single word be? In an upcoming Supreme Court case, the interpretation could affect the length of thousands of prison sentences handed down each year.

It’s hard to imagine a less contentious or more innocent word than “and.”

But how to interpret that simple conjunction has prompted a complicated legal fight that lands in the Supreme Court on Oct. 2, the first day of its new term. What the justices decide could affect thousands of prison sentences each year.

Federal courts across the country disagree about whether the word, as it is used in a bipartisan 2018 criminal justice overhaul, indeed means “and” or whether it means “or.” Even an appellate panel that upheld a longer sentence called the structure of the provision “perplexing.”

The Supreme Court has stepped in to settle the dispute.

It’s the kind of task the justices — and maybe their English teachers — love. The case requires the close parsing of a part of a federal statute, the First Step Act, which aimed in part to reduce mandatory minimum sentences and give judges more discretion.

  • @SheeEttinEnglish
    16•1 year ago

    And since fucking asshole journalists and editors never mention the actual goddamn law, it’s 18 U.S. Code § 3553(f)(1), here: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/3553#f

    Condensed version:

    The court shall impose a sentence pursuant to guidelines […] without regard to any statutory minimum sentence, if the court finds at sentencing, […] that—
    (1) the defendant does not have
    (A) more than 4 criminal history points, excluding any criminal history points resulting from a 1-point offense, as determined under the sentencing guidelines;
    (B) a prior 3-point offense, as determined under the sentencing guidelines; and
    (C) a prior 2-point violent offense, as determined under the sentencing guidelines;

    The “and” is pretty clear. In order to qualify for sentencing outside the statutory minimum, you must not have more than 4 points, a 3-point offense, and a 2-point violent offense. In short, you must not have A, B, and C. If you have A, B, and C, you do not qualify. But almost nobody is going to have all three of A, B, and C.

      • @SheeEttinEnglish
        2•1 year ago

        It’s really not ambiguous at all. There is no reasonable way to read “and” and interpret it as “or”.

        • @[email protected]English
          1•1 year ago

          Right, but with more logic-challenged individuals in mind, this is far more ambiguous than necessary. It shouldn’t be ambiguous to anyone in law, though, and that’s all that should matter.

    • billwashereEnglish
      1•1 year ago

      So the argument is basically: (A&B&C) Or (A) or (B&C)

      Correct?

      • @[email protected]
        1•1 year ago

        Looks like it but if so IMO it’s not really about and, it’s about the structure of how the conditions are written down. Another and between A & B would clarify the intent if all 3 conditions need to be met.

        • @SheeEttinEnglish
          0•1 year ago

          It would not. A, B, and C means all three. If they meant any other configuration of criteria, there are existing ways of writing it that they would have used.

      • @SheeEttinEnglish
        0•1 year ago

        The citizens’ argument is that the law is clear in that you are only disqualified from reduced sentencing if you meet all three conditions.

        The other side, used by some courts and prosecutors, is that obviously Congress didn’t mean what they wrote, so they’re going to use the more punitive interpretation.