Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/20pdf/20-5904_i4dk.pdf
Page Number: 14.0

4 

TERRY v. UNITED STATES 

Opinion of SOTOMAYOR, J. 

their  use  and  distribution  that  . . .  research  and  data  no 
longer support.”  Kimbrough v. United States, 552 U. S. 85, 
97 (2007) (internal quotation marks omitted).  This was ob-
vious  to  the  public,  which  came  “to  understand  sentences 
embodying the 100-to-1 ratio as reflecting unjustified race-
based differences.”  Dorsey v. United States, 567 U. S. 260, 
268 (2012).

The  Sentencing  Commission  published  detailed  reports
in  1995,  1997,  2002,  and  2007  asking  Congress  to  reduce
the  disparity,  which  it  found  to  be  unjustified  standing
alone, and particularly unjustified in light of its disparate 
impact.  See Kimbrough, 552 U. S., at 97–100.  Each report 
“unanimously  and  strongly  urge[d]  Congress  to  act 
promptly”  to  “[i]ncrease  the  five-year  and  ten-year  statu-
tory mandatory minimum threshold quantities for crack co-
caine offenses.”  2007 Report 8. 

II 
Congress eventually responded with the Fair Sentencing
Act of 2010.  124 Stat. 2372.  Section 2 of the Act increased 
the amounts of crack cocaine necessary to trigger minimum
sentences,  reducing  the  crack-to-powder  ratio  to  18  to  1. 
§2(a),  ibid.  The  Sentencing  Commission,  in turn,  quickly
revised the drug quantity tables to reflect that new ratio. 
USSG App. C, Amdt. 748 (Nov. 2010).  It later made those 
amendments  retroactive,  thus  making  reduced  sentences 
available to thousands of crack offenders who were serving
prison sentences based on unduly high Guidelines ranges. 
USSG App. C, Amdt. 759 (Nov. 2011).  

These  amendments,  however,  had  two  principal  short-
comings.  First,  the  Fair  Sentencing  Act’s  changes  to  the 
mandatory minimums were not retroactive.  Even if an of-
fender’s  new  Guidelines  range  was  below  the  applicable 
minimum, the court could go no lower.  Second, not all of-
fenders  could  move  for  reduced  sentences.    Such  motions 
are available only to individuals whose original sentences