Supreme Court Unanimously Affirms Abbott v. United States

The Supreme Court today issued a decision in Abbott v. United States, No. 09-479, and Gould v. United States, No. 09-7073, holding that 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) provides the minimum consecutive sentence for criminal defendants convicted of violating its terms unless another statute addressing the conduct at issue in § 924(c) requires a longer mandatory minimum sentence.

Both Abbott and Gould were criminal defendants sentenced under various statutes and also under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c).  Section 924(c), part of the Gun Control Act of 1968, prohibits using, carrying, or possessing a deadly weapon in connection with "any crime of violence or drug trafficking crime."  It establishes a minimum mandatory sentence to be served consecutively, "[e]xcept to the extent that a greater minimum sentence is otherwise provided by [§ 924(c) itself] or by any other provision of law."  The defendants argued that their sentences under other statutes triggered the "except" clause of § 924(c), so that it was error to apply the minimum sentences contained in § 924(c) along with the sentences imposed under other statutes for different offenses.

The Supreme Court disagreed.  The Court first considered the development of the statutory language, as the original text did not contain the "except" clause.  All parties agreed that, as originally enacted, § 924(c) provided a consecutive mandatory minimum sentence that would not be preempted by sentences imposed for other convictions.  In 1998, in response to a Supreme Court decision, Congress amended the statute to increase its scope and extend to "mere possession" of a weapon.  That amendment also increased the penalties for some offenses, changed the mandatory sentences into mandatory minimum sentences, and restructured the section by dividing it into subparagraphs.  Finally, the "except" clause was added.  The Court held that § 924(c) now provides mandatory minimum sentences to be served consecutively with any other sentences, unless another statute addressing the conduct at issue in § 924(c) – possession of a firearm in connection with a predicate crime – requires a longer mandatory minimum sentence for that crime.

The Court reasoned that it was "implausible" that Congress intended to reduce the penalties through its 1998 amendments, in light of Congress's description that the bill was intended to "throttle criminal use of guns" and the longstanding purpose of the Gun Control Act.  It noted the "sentencing anomalies" that some serious offenders would be spared from the sentence imposed by the statute, and the absurd result that the "worst offenders would often secure the shortest sentences" if the statute's minimum sentence were displaced by sentences for other convictions.  The Court concluded that its reading, on the other hand, gives full effect to the statutory language.  The decision "makes sense as a matter of syntax" and contextually because the "except" clause was added to prevent judges from "stacking" sentences established by §924(c).

Justice Ginsburg delivered the opinion of the Court, in which all other Justices joined, except Justice Kagan, who took no part in the consideration or decision of the cases.