Publication Date: June 27, 2025

Overview
On June 26, 2025, the Supreme Court ruled 5–4 in Hewitt v. United States that people resentenced after having their old gun-crime sentences thrown out can receive the reduced prison terms Congress created in the 2018 First Step Act. In plain terms, if someone’s §924(c) sentence was vacated and they must be resentenced today, they benefit from the law’s lower mandatory minimums—potentially shortening decades-long terms. This decision restores hope for dozens of federal prisoners previously facing stacked 25-year sentences for each gun count.

Facts

• Date and vote: On June 26, 2025, the Court reversed the Fifth Circuit by a 5–4 vote in Hewitt v. United States, No. 23-1002, and sent the cases back for resentencing under the First Step Act’s rules.
• Stacked sentences before 2018: Under 18 U.S.C. §924(c), first-time offenders faced a 5-year minimum for one gun count and then a consecutive 25-year minimum for each additional count—often producing 50- to 300-year terms.
• First Step Act relief: The 2018 law removed the 25-year stacking for most first offenders and made that change retroactive for anyone not yet finally sentenced on the enactment date ﹘ meaning courts could apply the lower terms on resentencing.
• What happened in Hewitt’s case: Petitioners convicted in 2009 of bank robbery and related gun counts originally received hundreds of years in prison. After successful appeals and vacatur of some gun convictions, they were resentenced in 2019 under old rules to 130+ years. The Supreme Court now holds they should have gotten the new, lighter terms.

Perspectives

• Federal Defenders (defense bar): “This decision restores common-sense relief to people serving hyper-excessive sentences for nonviolent gun offenses,” said the Federal Defender community, noting many clients could see decades cut from their terms.
• U.S. Department of Justice: Joining the petitioners, the Solicitor General agreed that if an old sentence is vacated, it “never truly existed” for retroactivity purposes, so the First Step Act’s relief must apply at resentencing.
• American Civil Liberties Union: The ACLU called it “a major victory for fairness,” stressing that Congress intended to help those caught in the harsh pre-2018 regime and should not lock them into outdated sentences.
• National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers: NACDL’s brief argued that barring resentenced defendants from relief “would defy basic principles of justice,” since the Act’s text focuses on whether a valid sentence remains, not whether anyone was ever sentenced.
• Dissenting Justices: The dissent (Alito, Thomas, Kavanaugh, Barrett) warned that the majority’s reading “rewrites clear statutory language,” contending Congress knew how to exclude prior sentences and chose not to.

Considerations

• Many federal inmates who successfully challenge aspects of their gun convictions may now be eligible for shorter sentences at resentencing.
• District courts across the country will need guidance on how to apply the First Step Act’s rules in dozens of pending cases.
• Prosecutors and defenders should review old §924(c) cases to identify who can benefit from this decision.
• Congress could legislate further if it wants to expand or limit retroactivity beyond this ruling.
• This split decision highlights ongoing debates over how far sentencing reforms should reach and the Supreme Court’s role in interpreting them.

© Copyright 2025, CAPY News LLC, All Rights Reserved.