Cato Legal Expert Discusses SCOTUS Decision in Hewitt v. United States

Today, the Supreme Court issued a consequential ruling in Hewitt v. United States. In an opinion by Justice Jackson, the Court concluded that under the First Step Act, a sentence “has been imposed” if, and only if, the sentence has not been vacated. Thus, the Act’s more lenient penalties apply to certain defendants whose previous sentences have been vacated and who need to be resentenced following the Act’s enactment.

The First Step Act significantly changed how mandatory minimum sentences are applied for repeat federal firearms offenses under § 924(c). This section criminalizes using or carrying a firearm during a violent or drug trafficking crime. Before the Act, a first conviction carried a minimum of five years, while subsequent convictions in the same proceeding triggered a 25-year minimum per count to be served consecutively. These pre-Act rules were widely criticized as irrational and unduly harsh.

Congress addressed this by clarifying that the enhanced 25-year minimum only applies if a prior conviction has become final before the new offense occurs. The Act applies its new sentencing rules to offenses committed after its enactment and to any offense committed before enactment if a sentence had not yet been imposed as of the enactment date.

However, a circuit split emerged regarding cases where a pre-Act sentence was vacated after the Act’s enactment. The Fifth Circuit ruled that the old, harsher sentencing rules still apply in such instances because even a vacated sentence still counts as one that “has been imposed.” This flawed decision effectively continued the draconian sentencing outcomes Congress sought to eliminate.

The Cato Institute signed on to amicus briefs at the certiorari and merits stages arguing that the Fifth Circuit’s approach is wrong as a textual matter. When a sentence is vacated, it’s treated for all intents and purposes as if it was never put into effect—it becomes a legal nullity. It would be incongruous if an invalid sentence, which is treated as having no force in every other respect, becomes the only thing standing in the way of a new, reasonable sentence under the rules Congress has set out.

Further, our briefs explained that to treat a resentenced defendant as if the First Step Act was never enacted would needlessly prolong the very types of injustices that the Act was meant to end.

Today’s decision is in line with congressional intent and will bring much needed relief to those serving draconian sentences.