The Supreme Court interprets the limited sentencing law narrowly

The law lists three types of criminal history as eligibility criteria. The judges were asked to decide whether just one type of criminal record disqualifies someone from a lighter sentence, or whether all three must be present for a disqualification.

Like the arguments, which focused on grammar — which basically means “and” in a list — Justice Kagan’s opinion took on the tone of an English teacher. The opinion, joined by Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel A. Alito Jr., Brett M. Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett, was peppered with examples of sentence structure drawn from childhood classics.

“Consider this perhaps half-remembered sentence from his childhood: ‘On Saturday he ate a piece of chocolate cake, an ice cream cone, a pickle, a slice of Swiss cheese, a slice of salami, a lollipop, a piece of cherry pie. , one sausage, one cupcake and one slice of watermelon,” Judge Kagan wrote, citing the book “The Very Hungry Caterpillar.”

The use of the word “and” meant the caterpillar ate any food, she wrote.

In a dissent, Justice Neil M. Gorsuch, joined by Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson, emphasized the purpose of the First Step Act. The legislation, he wrote, promised to “give more individuals the opportunity to avoid one-size-fits-all mandatory minimums and instead receive sentences that take into account their specific circumstances and crimes.”

The case, Pulsifer v. United StatesNo. 22-340, involved Mark E. Pulsifer, who was accused of twice selling methamphetamine to a confidential informant in southwestern Iowa.