(NewsNation) — The future of thousands of prison sentences could lie in the United States Supreme Court’s interpretation of the word “and,” the center of one of the first cases the court is expected to hear in its new term.
A decision would bring clarity to an issue federal courts haven’t been able to agree on, CBS News reported. The high court has stepped in to determine whether a series of qualifications or just one must be met for someone to be considered eligible to avoid a mandatory minimum sentence.
The First Step Act of 2018 reduced mandatory minimum sentences under federal law and gave judges more discretion to avoid handing down mandatory minimum sentences, Vox explained. According to Forbes, the law’s “safety valve” provision allows some nonviolent drug offenders who cooperate with authorities to avoid the mandatory minimum sentence.
The law states that nonviolent offenders can qualify if they don’t have more than four criminal history points, a prior three-point offense and a prior two-point violent offense.
The points in question refer to the tally system used to calculate a score based on factors including prior sentences and their lengths.
But the word “and” has some federal courts in a heated debate over who’s eligible for such treatment.
Lawyers for the man bringing the challenge forward say a person must be ineligible on all three qualifying factors for a longer sentence to be imposed, according to CBS. The government, however, says failing to meet just one condition is enough.
The Supreme Court is set to address the case Oct. 2.
