{"id":14555,"date":"2011-08-30T21:55:39","date_gmt":"2011-08-31T02:55:39","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/law.marquette.edu\/facultyblog\/?p=14555"},"modified":"2011-08-30T21:58:44","modified_gmt":"2011-08-31T02:58:44","slug":"doj-changes-its-mind-seventh-circuit-does-not","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/law.marquette.edu\/facultyblog\/2011\/08\/doj-changes-its-mind-seventh-circuit-does-not\/","title":{"rendered":"DOJ Changes Its Mind, Seventh Circuit Does Not"},"content":{"rendered":"<p>As I discussed in\u00a0<a href=\"http:\/\/www.lifesentencesblog.com\/?p=1809\">this post<\/a>, the Seventh Circuit earlier this year rejected retroactivity for the Fair Sentencing Act of 2010, which softened the mandatory minimum penalties for crack cocaine offenses. \u00a0In the Seventh Circuit\u2019s view, any crack offenses committed prior to August 3, 2010, when the FSA was signed into law, must still be sentenced under the harsh pre-FSA system. \u00a0Given the lag time between the commission of an offense and the conviction and sentencing of the offender, district judges in the Seventh Circuit are even now probably still imposing sentences that Congress has declared to be unfair.<\/p>\n<p>The Seventh Circuit\u2019s position followed that of the Department of Justice. \u00a0However, since the initial retroactivity ruling, DOJ has changed its position and now supports partial retroactivity. \u00a0Additionally, three other circuits have since rejected the Seventh Circuit\u2019s position. \u00a0In light of these developments, one of the Seventh Circuit judges proposed that the initial ruling be reconsidered\u00a0<em>en banc<\/em>. \u00a0Last week, however, the court announced that the initial ruling would stand.<\/p>\n<p><!--more--><\/p>\n<p>&nbsp;<\/p>\n<p>Remarkably, the court was split 5-5, just barely short of the majority required for rehearing. \u00a0One wonders how the late Judge Evans would have voted if he had lived a little while longer. \u00a0To be sure, he was part of the panel that initially rejected retroactivity, but both of the other members of the panel switched sides and supported rehearing. \u00a0(I can\u2019t recall ever seeing such a switch by multiple panel members in connection with a rehearing decision \u2014 it is perhaps an indication of how important DOJ\u2019s switch was in the minds of some of the judges.)<\/p>\n<p>Judge Easterbrook wrote an opinion opposing rehearing, while Judge Williams wrote the principal opinion for rehearing. \u00a0<a href=\"http:\/\/www.ca7.uscourts.gov\/fdocs\/docs.fwx?submit=showbr&amp;shofile=11-1558_001.pdf\"><em>United States v. Holcomb<\/em>\u00a0(No. 11-1558)<\/a>. \u00a0These are both remarkably lucid, cogent opinions. \u00a0They effectively present quite different approaches to statutory interpretation and touch on some deep jurisprudential questions. \u00a0This would make a very nice teaching case in a statutory interpretation class.<\/p>\n<p>The general rule is against retroactivity for a new statute repealing penalties, although Congress is free to override the general rule. \u00a0As to the FSA, the Williams position is basically this: in the statute, Congress made clear that the Sentencing Commission should move as quickly as possible to reduce crack penalties in the sentencing guidelines, with the understanding that the reduced\u00a0<em>guidelines<\/em>\u00a0penalties would apply to everyone sentenced after the new guidelines took effect (Nov. 1, 2010). \u00a0Why, Williams asked, would Congress want the new guidelines sentences to be applied as quickly as possible to all new sentencings, but not want the same prompt implementation of the new\u00a0<em>statutory<\/em>\u00a0sentences? \u00a0Retroactivity for\u00a0<em>both\u00a0<\/em>types of sentence reductions is the only way to make sense of Congress\u2019s intentions.<\/p>\n<p>Ours is not to question why, responded Easterbrook. \u00a0For all we know, what seems an arbitrary distinction between retroactivity for guidelines changes and retroactivity for statutory changes was part of a backroom deal that was necessary to secure the FSA\u2019s passage. \u00a0Bringing principled coherence to the law lies beyond the judicial role in interpreting statutes. \u00a0Arbitrary though the result may be, nothing in the FSA provides a sufficiently clear signal that Congress wanted retroactivity for the changes in the statutory penalties.<\/p>\n<p>Cross posted at <a href=\"http:\/\/www.lifesentencesblog.com\/?p=3168\">Life Sentences Blog<\/a>.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>As I discussed in\u00a0this post, the Seventh Circuit earlier this year rejected retroactivity for the Fair Sentencing Act of 2010, which softened the mandatory minimum penalties for crack cocaine offenses. \u00a0In the Seventh Circuit\u2019s view, any crack offenses committed prior to August 3, 2010, when the FSA was signed into law, must still be sentenced [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":7,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"ocean_post_layout":"","ocean_both_sidebars_style":"","ocean_both_sidebars_content_width":0,"ocean_both_sidebars_sidebars_width":0,"ocean_sidebar":"","ocean_second_sidebar":"","ocean_disable_margins":"enable","ocean_add_body_class":"","ocean_shortcode_before_top_bar":"","ocean_shortcode_after_top_bar":"","ocean_shortcode_before_header":"","ocean_shortcode_after_header":"","ocean_has_shortcode":"","ocean_shortcode_after_title":"","ocean_shortcode_before_footer_widgets":"","ocean_shortcode_after_footer_widgets":"","ocean_shortcode_before_footer_bottom":"","ocean_shortcode_after_footer_bottom":"","ocean_display_top_bar":"default","ocean_display_header":"default","ocean_header_style":"","ocean_center_header_left_menu":"","ocean_custom_header_template":"","ocean_custom_logo":0,"ocean_custom_retina_logo":0,"ocean_custom_logo_max_width":0,"ocean_custom_logo_tablet_max_width":0,"ocean_custom_logo_mobile_max_width":0,"ocean_custom_logo_max_height":0,"ocean_custom_logo_tablet_max_height":0,"ocean_custom_logo_mobile_max_height":0,"ocean_header_custom_menu":"","ocean_menu_typo_font_family":"","ocean_menu_typo_font_subset":"","ocean_menu_typo_font_size":0,"ocean_menu_typo_font_size_tablet":0,"ocean_menu_typo_font_size_mobile":0,"ocean_menu_typo_font_size_unit":"px","ocean_menu_typo_font_weight":"","ocean_menu_typo_font_weight_tablet":"","ocean_menu_typo_font_weight_mobile":"","ocean_menu_typo_transform":"","ocean_menu_typo_transform_tablet":"","ocean_menu_typo_transform_mobile":"","ocean_menu_typo_line_height":0,"ocean_menu_typo_line_height_tablet":0,"ocean_menu_typo_line_height_mobile":0,"ocean_menu_typo_line_height_unit":"","ocean_menu_typo_spacing":0,"ocean_menu_typo_spacing_tablet":0,"ocean_menu_typo_spacing_mobile":0,"ocean_menu_typo_spacing_unit":"","ocean_menu_link_color":"","ocean_menu_link_color_hover":"","ocean_menu_link_color_active":"","ocean_menu_link_background":"","ocean_menu_link_hover_background":"","ocean_menu_link_active_background":"","ocean_menu_social_links_bg":"","ocean_menu_social_hover_links_bg":"","ocean_menu_social_links_color":"","ocean_menu_social_hover_links_color":"","ocean_disable_title":"default","ocean_disable_heading":"default","ocean_post_title":"","ocean_post_subheading":"","ocean_post_title_style":"","ocean_post_title_background_color":"","ocean_post_title_background":0,"ocean_post_title_bg_image_position":"","ocean_post_title_bg_image_attachment":"","ocean_post_title_bg_image_repeat":"","ocean_post_title_bg_image_size":"","ocean_post_title_height":0,"ocean_post_title_bg_overlay":0.5,"ocean_post_title_bg_overlay_color":"","ocean_disable_breadcrumbs":"default","ocean_breadcrumbs_color":"","ocean_breadcrumbs_separator_color":"","ocean_breadcrumbs_links_color":"","ocean_breadcrumbs_links_hover_color":"","ocean_display_footer_widgets":"default","ocean_display_footer_bottom":"default","ocean_custom_footer_template":"","ocean_post_oembed":"","ocean_post_self_hosted_media":"","ocean_post_video_embed":"","ocean_link_format":"","ocean_link_format_target":"self","ocean_quote_format":"","ocean_quote_format_link":"post","ocean_gallery_link_images":"on","ocean_gallery_id":[],"footnotes":""},"categories":[30,28,74,122,23],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-14555","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-criminal-justice","category-criminal-law-process","category-federal-sentencing","category-public","category-seventh-circuit","entry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/law.marquette.edu\/facultyblog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/14555","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/law.marquette.edu\/facultyblog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/law.marquette.edu\/facultyblog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/law.marquette.edu\/facultyblog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/7"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/law.marquette.edu\/facultyblog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=14555"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/law.marquette.edu\/facultyblog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/14555\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/law.marquette.edu\/facultyblog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=14555"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/law.marquette.edu\/facultyblog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=14555"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/law.marquette.edu\/facultyblog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=14555"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}