Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/20pdf/20-5904_i4dk.pdf
Page Number: 5

Cite as:  593 U. S. ____ (2021) 

3 

Opinion of the Court 

the third penalty.  In exchange for the Government drop-
ping two firearm charges, petitioner pleaded guilty in 2008
to  possession  with  intent  to  distribute  an  unspecified
amount of crack.  At sentencing, the District Court deter-
mined that his offense involved about 4 grams of crack, a 
schedule  II  drug.  See  21  U. S. C.  §812;  21  CFR  §1308.12 
(2006).  It also determined that petitioner was a career of-
fender  under  the  Sentencing  Guidelines.  United  States 
Sentencing  Commission,  Guidelines  Manual  §4B1.1(b) 
(Nov.  2008)  (USSG).  The  career-offender  Guidelines  con-
trolled because they recommended a higher sentence than
the drug-quantity Guidelines.  Ibid.  The District Court sen-
tenced petitioner to 188 months, the bottom of the career-
offender Guidelines range.  

All  this  occurred  while  Congress  was  considering
whether to change the quantity thresholds for crack penal-
ties.  In 1995, the Sentencing Commission issued a report 
to Congress stating that it thought the 100-to-1 ratio was
too high.  In particular, it stressed that the then-mandatory 
Guidelines  helped  make  the  ratio  excessive  because  the 
Guidelines, which were not yet in effect when Congress cre-
ated the ratio, addressed some of Congress’ concerns about
crack.    Addressing  those  concerns  through  both  the  ratio 
and  the  Guidelines,  the  Commission  said,  “doubly  pun-
ished”  offenders.    United  States  Sentencing  Commission, 
Special Report to the Congress: Cocaine and Federal Sen-
tencing Policy 195–197 (Feb. 1995).  Separately, although
the Commission thought that it was reasonable to conclude
that “crack cocaine poses greater harms to society than does
powder cocaine,” it determined that the ratio overstated the
difference  in  harm.  Ibid.   Finally,  the  Commission  noted
that persons convicted of crack offenses were disproportion-
ately black, so a ratio that was too high created a “percep-
tion of unfairness” even though there was no reason to be-
lieve “that racial bias or animus undergirded the initiation