Legal News

US Supreme Court Decides Federal Sentencing Law Does Not Mandate Consecutive Sentences
Download PDF
1 Star2 Stars3 Stars4 Stars5 Stars (No Ratings Yet)

The US Supreme Court recently issued a slip opinion, stating that district courts can decide whether to impose concurrent or consecutive sentences for specific drug-related crimes under federal sentencing law. The ruling came as part of an appeal from the US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.

Justice Ketanji Brown authored the unanimous opinion. The Court examined the applicability of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(D)(ii), which previously imposed a ban on concurrent sentences in cases involving offenses under 18 U.S.C. § 924(j). The Court concluded that the prohibition on concurrent sentences specified in § 924(c)(1)(D)(ii) does not extend to offenses falling under § 924(j), thereby granting district courts the authority to determine whether sentences should be served consecutively or concurrently. The Court further emphasized that § 924(j) does not incorporate or reference the penalties outlined in § 924(c). Combining these subsections, the Court reasoned, would inevitably lead to conflicting provisions. Consequently, the Court vacated the appeals court’s judgment and ordered the case to be remanded for further proceedings.

The case involved a petitioner convicted in a district court for his involvement in a drug-related murder and a conspiracy to distribute drugs. The district court, citing the prohibition in § 924(c)(1)(D)(ii), asserted that it lacked the discretion to determine whether the petitioner’s sentences should run consecutively or concurrently. The appeals court subsequently affirmed this decision.


This Supreme Court ruling has significant implications for federal sentencing practices in drug-related cases. By recognizing the discretion of district courts to impose concurrent or consecutive sentences, the Court has introduced a level of flexibility that acknowledges the unique circumstances and complexities often associated with such crimes.

Trust BCG Attorney Search to connect you with top legal employers in your area. Search now!

The Court’s decision rested on a careful interpretation of the relevant statutory provisions and the intention behind them. By noting the absence of any reference to concurrent sentencing in § 924(j) and the potential collision between subsections (c) and (j) if combined, the Court crafted a compelling argument in favor of district court discretion.

Get JD Journal in Your Mail

Subscribe to our FREE daily news alerts and get the latest updates on the most happening events in the legal, business, and celebrity world. You also get your daily dose of humor and entertainment!!

This ruling alters the landscape for sentencing drug-related offenses, giving district courts the authority to tailor sentences to the specific circumstances of each case. By considering factors such as the severity of the crime, the defendant’s role, and the overall impact on public safety, district courts can now exercise their judgment in determining the appropriate length and nature of sentences.

While this ruling grants more discretion to district courts, it is essential to note that they must exercise this authority judiciously and in accordance with established legal principles. The Supreme Court’s decision does not imply unfettered discretion but rather acknowledges the need for individualized justice within the confines of federal sentencing law.

The implications of this ruling extend beyond the immediate case at hand. It sets a precedent that can guide future decisions in drug-related cases and may prompt a reevaluation of previous convictions where concurrent sentencing was deemed impermissible under § 924(c)(1)(D)(ii). District courts now have the opportunity to revisit those cases and apply the newly affirmed discretion in their sentencing determinations.

The US Supreme Court’s recent ruling clarifies that district courts possess the discretion to impose concurrent or consecutive sentences for certain drug-related offenses under federal sentencing law. By interpreting the statutes at hand and identifying the absence of an explicit prohibition in § 924(j), the Court has allowed district courts to consider the unique circumstances of each case. This decision empowers district courts to exercise their judgment in sentencing, ensuring a more individualized approach to justice in drug-related cases.

We want to hear from you! Leave a comment and let us know what you think about this article.



Associate Attorney


ASSOCIATE ATTORNEY McKenna Snyder LLC, a law firm in Exton, PA has an immediate opening for an ex...

Apply now



Qualifications: HaasCaywood is seeking associate attorneys for our Coldwater and Sturgis, Michiga...

Apply now



Qualifications: HaasCaywood is seeking associate attorneys for our Coldwater and Sturgis, Michiga...

Apply now

Deputy General Counsel / Senior Deputy General Counsel


Cal Cities Culture and Mission Cal Cities is dedicated to creating a collaborative and inclusive ...

Apply now




Search Now

Education Law Attorney

USA-CA-El Segundo

El Segundo office of a BCG Attorney Search Top Ranked Law Firm seeks an education law attorney with ...

Apply Now

Education Law Attorney


Carlsbad office of a BCG Attorney Search Top Ranked Law Firm seeks an education law attorney with 4-...

Apply Now

Education Law and Public Entity Attorney

USA-CA-El Segundo

El Segundo office of a BCG Attorney Search Top Ranked Law Firm seeks an education law and public ent...

Apply Now

Most Popular


To Top