The Supreme Court heard a case on Monday in which a defendant sought to reduce the criminal penalty he received for gun possession due to the legalization of hemp by the federal government in 2018.
The Armed Career Criminal Act, a law from 1984 that imposes gun possession penalties for those with violent felonies and serious drug offenses in the past, is at issue.
The law initially imposes a maximum 10-year penalty for possessing a gun, but after 3 offenses, the minimum mandatory sentence increases to 15 years. The act, like other three-strikes legislations, was designed to discourage recidivism through increasing criminal penalties.
The Supreme Court case Brown v. U.S. is consolidated with a case brought by a separate petitioner. It centers around what constitutes a drug offense for ACCA purposes, given the rapid changes in laws governing controlled substances and the conflicts that can arise between the state and federal governments.
The ACCA does not include a list that includes substances that are eligible under the law. Instead, it relies on other laws to determine if a conviction is relevant.
Austin Raynor told the court, on behalf of federal government, that the cross-reference made to a dynamic external law body was crucial. The cross-reference, in our opinion, raises a question of time. “When Congress decides to refer to an external body, it raises the issue of which version of this body is Congress intending on referencing?”
In its summary, the court highlighted the importance of the case for criminal defendants. It noted that the distinction “dictates whether you serve a maximum of 10 years or a minimum 15-year sentence.”
Justin Brown is one petitioner in the consolidated matter. He is facing a 15-year gun possession sentence that he claims was a result of a Pennsylvania judge incorrectly using his previous marijuana offenses in sentencing him under ACCA, because the federal government had legalized hemp via the 2018 Farm Bill. Brown was sentenced to 15 years in 2021 after the law had changed.
Jeffrey T. Green, Brown’s lawyer, said: “We believe that the sentencing courts should use schedules which are current at sentencing.” This Court has stated that it is the usual practice to use current law at sentencing.
Green added, “There is no reason to depart from this normal practice.” The ACCA’s goal is to only punish the worst offenders. To do otherwise would be to ignore Congress’s decision to alter the drug schedules in the 2018 Farm Bill.
Justice Samuel Alito asked, “Does your argument mean that marijuana convictions prior to 2018 will not count as ACCA predicate?”
Green said “No,” because there would need to be a match-up between the federal and state.
The conservative members of the court sided with the notion that courts should examine the drug laws in effect at the time the conviction for firearm possession was made. However, the more liberal members suggested the courts look at the drug laws in force at the time the conviction was made.
Justice Sonia Sotomayor said, “When you cross-reference something, you take everything along with it.” You’re choosing and saying that you’ll only take a part of something, and not the whole thing. ‘”
She appeared to be inclined to agree with Brown’s attorney, who argued that the courts should consider the laws and regulations in place at the time the firearm offense was committed.
Neil Gorsuch, a conservative justice, seemed to be sympathetic with Brown’s argument.
He said: “You will have to look at the old sentencing guides, sentencing systems, and some people may not be able to benefit from later-enacted changes to the schedule. You know, the reduction of penalties under the Schedule between the time of federal guilt and federal sentencing.”
Eugene Jackson, the other petitioner, claims that his sentencing in 2017 did not take into consideration the Federal Government’s 2015 rescheduling ioflupane (a cocaine derivative).
Andrew Adler, Jackson’s lawyer, said to the court that the government only says, “Well, the schedules don’t appear in ACA, so amending them isn’t the same as amending ACCA.” He said that “where one law incorporates or crosses references another”, “that latter act is contained and written in the first.” Cross-references are made in this way.
He said that when a substance was removed from the schedule, “it also removed from ACCA coverage.”
Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson questioned at one point during the hearing why it was that the government wanted to incarcerate people for longer periods over conduct which is no longer considered criminal. According to the initial transcript of the oral argument, she asked: “Why would Congress wish to incapacitate defendants for crimes that federal law does not regard as serious?”
The decision of the high court in this case may have an impact on other criminal defendants who are facing mandatory minimum sentences due to past drug crimes for gun possession.
Shawn Hauser is an attorney and co-chair of the hemp and cannabinoids division at Vicente LLP, a cannabis-focused law office. He said that this issue is also especially relevant , as the federal government considers rescheduling marijuana .
She told Marijuana Moment via email that “this is fascinating.” This will certainly have implications for cannabis crimes in the event that cannabis is rescheduled.
The Justice Department has been defending federal firearms and marijuana laws in the last few years.
The Biden administration claimed that cannabis users with guns pose a unique danger to society. This is because they are “unlikely” to store their weapon properly before using marijuana. The Biden administration said that cannabis users with guns were a special danger to society. This is because they are “unlikely to” store their firearm properly before using marijuana.
Attorneys for the Justice Department submitted a brief in this case arguing that the prohibition on firearms for marijuana users is justified by historical analogies to restrictions imposed on the mentally ill or habitually intoxicated during the period of ratification of the Second Amendment in 1791.
The federal government has claimed repeatedly that these analogues are evidence of the need to limit gun rights for cannabis consumers. But a number of federal courts have ruled the marijuana-related prohibition unconstitutional . This has led DOJ to appeal several ongoing cases.
Last month, the Justice Department made similar arguments during oral argument in a related but separate case before the U.S. Court of Appeals of the Eleventh Circuit. This case is about the Second Amendment rights for medical cannabis patients in Florida.
The attorneys in both cases also touched upon a U.S. Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit decision in Daniels v. United States that was issued in August. This ruling found that the ban prohibiting people who use cannabis from possessing firearms is unconstitutional even if the marijuana is consumed for non-medical purposes.
DOJ had informed the Eleventh Circuit Court that it believed the ruling to be “incorrectly determined,”, and the department’s lawyer reiterated the government’s view that “there are reasons to doubt the foundations” in the appeals court’s decision.
In February, the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma ruled that the prohibition against people using marijuana possessing firearms was unconstitutional. The judge stated that the federal government’s justification for maintaining the law is “concerning.”
Also, in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas, a judge ruled in April that banning people who use marijuana from possessing firearms is unconstitutional–and it said that the same legal principle also applies to the sale and transfer of guns, too.
The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives sent a letter in August to Arkansas officials stating that the recently passed law allowing medical cannabis patients obtain concealed carry firearm licenses, “creates an unacceptably risk” and could compromise the state’s federally approved alternative gun licensing policy.
issued a warning shortly after Minnesota’s Governor signed into law a legalization measure in May. The agency reminded that cannabis users are prohibited from purchasing or possessing firearms and ammunition until the federal prohibition is lifted.
ATF will issue an advisory in 2020 that specifically targets Michigan and requires gun sellers conduct federal background checks for all unlicensed buyers. It said Michigan’s cannabis laws allowed “habitual marijuana consumers” and other disqualified persons to obtain firearms without a license.
Attorneys for President Joe Biden’s son Hunter, who has been indicted over a charge that he bought a gun during a period when it was revealed that he used crack cocaine, have cited the previous court ruling on the constitutionality of the federal ban and argued that this applies to their case.
Two Republican members of Congress have introduced two bills in this session, focusing on marijuana and gun policy.
Rep. Brian Mast, co-chairman of the Congressional Cannabis Caucus and a member of the House of Representatives, introduced legislation in May that would protect the Second Amendment right of marijuana users in states where the drug is legal. This would allow them to buy and possess firearms, which they are currently prohibited to have under federal law.
Senate Majority leader Chuck Schumer (DNY) has promised to attach that legislation to the bipartisan marijuana banking bill, which advanced out of a committee last month.
Mast is also sponsoring a separate Bill from Rep. Alex Mooney (R-WV), in this session, which would allow medical marijuana patients to buy and possess firearms.
Jersey City, New Jersey is one place where this issue is of particular relevance. Mayor Steven M. Fulop, (D), is suing the state over its policy which allows police officers to smoke marijuana when they are not on duty.
This challenge has, however, sparked pushback by two police officers who have sued Jersey City for what they claim is a political motivated move made by Fulop to serve a future gubernatorial election.
Ohio Republican lawmaker files bill to allow cities to ban marijuana use and home grow one week before legalization takes effect
The first time Marijuana moment published the post Supreme Court weighs whether hemp legalization affects gun possession mandatory minimums for man with marijuana convictions.
