How important can the meaning of a single word be? In an upcoming Supreme Court case, the interpretation could affect the length of thousands of prison sentences handed down each year.

It’s hard to imagine a less contentious or more innocent word than “and.”

But how to interpret that simple conjunction has prompted a complicated legal fight that lands in the Supreme Court on Oct. 2, the first day of its new term. What the justices decide could affect thousands of prison sentences each year.

Federal courts across the country disagree about whether the word, as it is used in a bipartisan 2018 criminal justice overhaul, indeed means “and” or whether it means “or.” Even an appellate panel that upheld a longer sentence called the structure of the provision “perplexing.”

The Supreme Court has stepped in to settle the dispute.

It’s the kind of task the justices — and maybe their English teachers — love. The case requires the close parsing of a part of a federal statute, the First Step Act, which aimed in part to reduce mandatory minimum sentences and give judges more discretion.

    • quindraco@lemm.ee
      222·
      1 year ago

      Congress has never, not once in its history, written a law that did not abuse the English language. Case in point: the unparseable Second Amendment.

      • AmberPrince@kbin.social
        265·
        1 year ago

        What do you mean? The second Ammendment says “The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” That’s all there is to it. There isn’t any other part of that Ammendment. It doesn’t have a single other word as a part of it. Don’t look it up.

          • bobman@unilem.org
            11·
            1 year ago

            The American militia was made up of ‘minutemen’ who could be ready for battle on a moment’s notice.

            This was just normal Americans with guns that decided to fight the british when it was possible.

            The same thing applies to normal gun owners now, although their effectiveness against a state military isn’t going to be nearly as much as before.

        • MNByChoice@midwest.social
          85·
          1 year ago

          It is worse than that. (I assume you are kidding, but only about the first part.)(I assume this because I have heard this joke from others.)

          https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

          There are several versions of the text of the Second Amendment, each with capitalization or punctuation differences. Differences exist between the version passed by Congress and put on display and the versions ratified by the states.[24][25][26][27] These differences have been a focus of debate regarding the meaning of the amendment, particularly regarding the importance of what the courts have called the prefatory clause.[28][29]

        • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
          1·
          1 year ago

          I’ve always said that the only part of the Constitution the right really cares about is the second half of the Second Amendment.

    • mifan@feddit.dkEnglish
      18·
      1 year ago

      It’s basically explained in these three sections:

      “In particular, the justices will be examining a so-called safety valve provision that is meant to spare low-level, nonviolent drug dealers who agree to plead guilty and cooperate with prosecutors from having to face often longer mandatory sentences.”

      “The provision lists three criteria for allowing judges to forgo a mandatory minimum sentence that basically look to the severity of prior crimes. Congress did not make it easy by writing the section in the negative so that a judge can exercise discretion in sentencing if a defendant “does not have” three sorts of criminal history.”

      “The question is how to determine eligibility for the safety valve — whether any of the conditions is enough to disqualify someone or whether it takes all three to be ineligible.”

      • SheeEttin@lemmy.worldEnglish
        16·
        1 year ago

        And since fucking asshole journalists and editors never mention the actual goddamn law, it’s 18 U.S. Code § 3553(f)(1), here: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/3553#f

        Condensed version:

        The court shall impose a sentence pursuant to guidelines […] without regard to any statutory minimum sentence, if the court finds at sentencing, […] that—
        (1) the defendant does not have
        (A) more than 4 criminal history points, excluding any criminal history points resulting from a 1-point offense, as determined under the sentencing guidelines;
        (B) a prior 3-point offense, as determined under the sentencing guidelines; and
        (C) a prior 2-point violent offense, as determined under the sentencing guidelines;

        The “and” is pretty clear. In order to qualify for sentencing outside the statutory minimum, you must not have more than 4 points, a 3-point offense, and a 2-point violent offense. In short, you must not have A, B, and C. If you have A, B, and C, you do not qualify. But almost nobody is going to have all three of A, B, and C.

          • dan1101@lemm.ee
            1·
            1 year ago

            Looks like it but if so IMO it’s not really about and, it’s about the structure of how the conditions are written down. Another and between A & B would clarify the intent if all 3 conditions need to be met.