Justice Samuel Alito just dropped a dissent that’s sharper than a courtroom objection. The Supreme Court’s latest ruling on the First Step Act has split the bench, with Alito leading a charge against what he sees as a blatant disregard for Congressional intent. It’s a battle over sentencing reform that’s got conservatives raising eyebrows and progressives nodding in approval.
Newsweek reported that on Thursday, the Supreme Court decided that the First Step Act of 2018, a law designed to ease federal sentencing and prison policies, applies retroactively to offenders awaiting sentencing or resentencing since its passage.
Let’s rewind to 2009, when Tony Hewitt, Corey Duffey, and Jarvis Ross were convicted of bank robbery, conspiracy, and firearm use during violent crimes.
Each faced over 325 years in prison, with hefty chunks tied to firearm charges—five years for the first offense, and 25 years per subsequent count. These are the kind of sentences that make you wonder if the punishment fits the crime.
The First Step Act, passed in 2018, aimed to soften federal sentencing, especially for firearm-related offenses tied to other crimes. Its retroactive clause applies to eligible offenders whose sentences hadn’t yet been finalized. That’s the crux of this debate—how far does “not yet imposed” really stretch?
Fast forward to the recent case: a district court vacated some convictions and sentences for Hewitt, Duffey, and Ross after the Act’s enactment.
At resentencing, they argued for the Act’s lighter penalties to apply. The Supreme Court majority agreed, ruling that anyone sentenced or resentenced post-Act gets the benefit of its guidelines.
Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, penning the majority opinion, argued, “A judge would thus correctly conclude at resentencing that, if an offender’s past sentence has been vacated, a sentence ‘has not been imposed.’” That sounds reasonable on paper, but does it open a Pandora’s box of endless do-overs? To conservatives, this feels like rewriting the rules mid-game.
Justice Alito, joined by Justices Clarence Thomas, Brett Kavanaugh, and Amy Coney Barrett, didn’t mince words in dissent. “The Court embraces an interpretation that has no limiting principle and affords petitioners a windfall,” Alito wrote. That’s a polite way of saying the majority just handed out get-out-of-jail-early cards without a clear boundary.
Alito further jabbed, “That is an indefensible result based on indefensible reasoning.” It’s a zinger that cuts to the heart of conservative frustration—shouldn’t the Court stick to interpreting laws, not reshaping them to fit a reformist agenda? This isn’t a knitting circle; it’s the highest court in the land.
The dissenters worry this ruling overturns the Fifth Circuit’s stricter take on the law, remanding the case for further proceedings. What’s the limit here? If every vacated sentence triggers a redo under new rules, are we just playing sentencing whack-a-mole?
Back to Jackson’s opinion: “Only past sentences with continued validity preclude application of the Act’s new penalties.” It’s a tidy line, but to skeptics, it smells like judicial overreach dressed in compassionate clothing. Conservatives argue this sidesteps what Congress likely intended—a narrower fix, not a free-for-all.
Alito’s critique stings with precision: “Animating the Court’s atextual interpretation is a thinly veiled desire to march in the parade of sentencing reform.” Ouch. He’s accusing the majority of letting progressive ideals cloud statutory clarity, a charge that resonates with those wary of activist judges.
The split on the bench isn’t just academic—it’s personal for Hewitt, Duffey, and Ross, whose combined sentences once topped a jaw-dropping 325 years each. While empathy for their plight isn’t misplaced, shouldn’t there be a line between fairness and rewriting history? That’s the question conservatives are asking.
Notably, Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Neil Gorsuch didn’t join parts of Jackson’s opinion, hinting at unease even among the majority. That fracture only fuels Alito’s point, as he noted, “The portions of today’s decision that command the votes of only three Justices give the game away.” It’s a subtle dig at a shaky consensus.
For those on the right, this ruling feels like another step in a cultural tug-of-war over criminal justice. Yes, reform matters, but at what cost to consistency and Congressional authority? The fear is a slippery slope where judicial whims trump legislative intent.