吃瓜直播

WASHINGTON 鈥� The Supreme Court ruled today that the sentencing reductions under the First Step Act of 2018 apply to people whose pre-Act sentences are vacated and who are subject to resentencing after the law鈥檚 enactment. The First Step Act was passed with overwhelming bipartisan support in 2018 to reduce the federal prison population, reform extreme sentencing laws, and expand rehabilitation and reentry programs. Among its provisions, the law significantly lowered mandatory minimum sentences for certain federal drug and firearm offenses. Today鈥檚 decision means that people who were originally sentenced prior to the First Step Act but resentenced after the law鈥檚 effective date can benefit from these critical sentencing reforms. 鈥淔or many people facing extreme sentences of 50-plus years, applying the First Step Act can be the difference between dying in prison and having a chance to return home,鈥� said Emma Andersson, deputy director of the 吃瓜直播鈥檚 Criminal Law Reform Project. 鈥淭he First Step Act was a landmark achievement in federal sentencing reform, and this decision ensures that it will mitigate extreme and outdated sentencing laws for more people. The 吃瓜直播 was vocal about supporting the First Step Act when it was passed, and we continue to advocate for the law to be fully implemented as Congress intended.鈥� 鈥淲e hail today鈥檚 decision in Hewitt as a win for the common-sense sentencing reform Congress enacted with the First Step Act,鈥� said Cecillia Wang, national legal director of the 吃瓜直播. 鈥淛ustice Jackson, writing for the majority, speaks with the authority of a federal sentencing expert, and the language and purpose of the statute has always been clear. Individuals who are being resentenced get the benefit of Congress鈥檚 reform.鈥� The 吃瓜直播, 吃瓜直播 of Texas, CATO Institute, Due Process Institute, National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, and FAMM, working with Covington & Burling, filed an amicus brief in support of the petitioners who sought application of the First Step Act in their cases and resolution of a split in the courts of appeals on the law鈥檚 reach in cases like theirs. The question at issue is of exceptional importance to people facing resentencing, and applying the First Step Act in these cases is consistent with Congress鈥� intent. This case is part of the 吃瓜直播鈥檚 Joan and Irwin Jacobs Supreme Court Docket. The amicus brief can be found here.

This case asks whether it violates equal protection principles to impose a prison sentence, instead of probation, based on a defendant鈥檚 inability to purchase a house. The 吃瓜直播鈥檚 State Supreme Court Initiative and the 吃瓜直播 of Iowa filed an amicus brief arguing that imposing a harsher sentence based on a criminal defendant鈥檚 inability to purchase a home impinges on the equal protection guarantees in the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution and article I, sections 1 and 6 of the Iowa Constitution.

This case asks whether the government can elicit inculpatory statements from a defendant by giving him misleading information about his rights and applying coercive pressure, then using the statements against him in a criminal case. The 吃瓜直播鈥檚 State Supreme Court Initiative and the 吃瓜直播 of Michigan filed an amicus brief arguing that such actions by the government violate a defendant鈥檚 rights under the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and, independently, Article 1, Section 17 of the Michigan Constitution, which affords even broader protections against self-incrimination than the Fifth Amendment.

This case presents two questions: first, whether, under the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and Article I, section 7 of the Tennessee Constitution, Union City Police Department officers possessed probable cause to conduct a warrantless search of the defendant鈥檚 vehicle based exclusively on the alleged odor of cannabis, and second, whether the Court of Appeals had jurisdiction to overturn the defendant鈥檚 conviction. The 吃瓜直播鈥檚 Criminal Reform Legal Project and State Supreme Court Initiative, along with the 吃瓜直播 of Tennessee filed an amicus brief arguing first, that after Tennessee鈥檚 legalization of hemp in 2019, an officer鈥檚 alleged detection of the odor of cannabis is insufficient to establish probable cause to conduct a warrantless search of a vehicle in Tennessee, and second, that the court of appeals improperly held that it lacked jurisdiction to overturn the defendant鈥檚 conviction.