Court Opinion

ID: 9432975
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-02 23:38:29.237505+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:23:38.534948
License: Public Domain

Justice Scalia,
concurring in the judgment.
My view of this case is close to, but not precisely, that of Justice Kennedy. I agree with him, for the reasons he well expresses, that the only linguistically tenable interpretation of 18 U. S. C. § 3565(a) establishes as & floor a sentence one-third of the sentence originally imposed, but leaves the district court free to impose any greater sentence available for the offense under the United States Code and the Sentencing Guidelines. Wherein I differ is that I do not believe (as he does) that only the probation element of the original sentence is to be considered — i. e., as he puts it' “that ‘original sentence’ refers to the sentence of probation a defendant in fact received at the initial sentencing.” Post, at 61 (emphasis added). (The Chief Justice also espouses *58this view, see post, at 71.) It seems to me that the term must refer to the entire original sentence; where that includes a fine in addition to the probation, the fine also is included. Thus, one-third of a sentence consisting of three years’ probation and a $3,000 fine would be not merely one year’s probation but a $1,000 fine as well. Even the majority, to maintain some measure of consistency in its strained interpretation of “original sentence,” ought to consider, in addition to “the applicable Guidelines sentence of imprisonment,” ante, at 54, the equally applicable range of fines set forth in the Guidelines, see United States Sentencing Commission, Guidelines Manual §5E 1.2(c)(3) (Nov. 1993) (USSG).*
*59Both under my analysis, and under Justice Kennedy’s, there exists a problem of comparing the incomparable that ought to be acknowledged. Since Granderson’s original sentence was 60 months’ probation plus a $2,000 fine, I must, in order to concur in today’s judgment, conclude, as I do, that the five extra months of prison (beyond the Guidelines’ 6-month maximum imposable for the original offense) which Granderson has served are worth at least $667 (one-third the original fine) and that 11 months in prison are the equivalent of 20 months’ probation plus a $667 fine — because otherwise I would have to consider imposing some or all of the $5,000 maximum fine imposable for the original offense, see USSG §5E 1.2(c)(3), or indeed consider departing upward from the applicable Guidelines range, see 18 U. S. C. § 3553(b), towards the 5-year imprisonment that is the statutory maximum for the offense, see 18 U. S. C. § 1703(a). And Justice Kennedy, even if he takes only the probation into account for purposes of determining the “original sentence,” must still conclude, it seems to me, that 11 months in prison is at least the equivalent of 20 months’ probation — because otherwise he would have to consider imposing some or all of the available $5,000 fine or departing upward from the Guidelines.
It is no easy task to determine how many days’ imprisonment equals how many dollars’ fine equals how many months’ probation. Comparing the incommensurate is always a tricky business. See, e. g., Bendix Autolite Corp. v. Midwesco Enterprises, Inc., 486 U. S. 888, 897 (1988) (Scalia, J., concurring in judgment). I frankly doubt that those who drafted and adopted this language intended to impose that task upon us; but I can neither pronounce the results reached by a straightforward reading of the statute utterly absurd nor discern any other self-evident disposition for which they are an obviously mistaken replacement. Cf. Green v. Bock Laundry Machine Co., 490 U. S. 504, 527 (1989) (Scalia, J., concurring in judgment). It seems to me that the other interpretations proposed today suffer, in varying degrees, the *60double curse of producing neither textually faithful results nor plausibly intended ones. It is best, as usual, to apply the statute as written, and to let Congress make the needed repairs. That repairs are needed is perhaps the only thing about this wretchedly drafted statute that we can all agree upon.
For these reasons, I concur in the judgment of the Court.
Justice Kennedy,
concurring in the judgment.
The Court’s holding that the drug proviso in 18 U. S. C. § 3565(a) calls for a mandatory minimum sentence of two months in prison rests upon two premises: first, that the term “original sentence” means the maximum Guidelines sentence that the district court could have, but did not, impose at the initial sentencing; and, second, that the verb “sentence” means only “sentence to imprisonment.” Neither premise is correct. As close analysis of the text and structure of the statute demonstrates, the proviso requires a mandatory minimum sentence of a probation term one-third the length of the initial term of probation. I concur in the judgment only because Granderson, under my reading of the statute, was entitled to release from prison.
I
Section 3565(a) provides, in relevant part:
“If the defendant violates a condition of probation at any time prior to the expiration or termination of the term of probation, the court may ...
“(1) continue him on probation, with or without extending the term or modifying or enlarging the conditions; or
“(2) revoke the sentence of probation and impose any other sentence that was available under subchapter A at the time of the initial sentencing.
“Notwithstanding any other provision of this section, if a defendant is found by the court to be in possession *61of a controlled substance, thereby violating the condition imposed by section 3563(a)(3), the court shall revoke the sentence of probation and sentence the defendant to not less than one-third of the original sentence” (Emphasis added.)
The Court construes the term “original sentence” to refer to the maximum sentence of imprisonment available under the Guidelines at the initial sentencing. I accept, in substantial part, The Chief Justice’s critique of the Court’s strained interpretation, and agree with him that “original sentence” refers to the sentence of probation a defendant in fact received at the initial sentencing. It is true that the term “original sentence,” standing alone, could be read to encompass the entire original sentence, including any fine imposed. When considered in context, however, it is preferable to construe the term to refer only to the original sentence of probation. The proviso instructs the district court to “revoke the sentence of probation,” but says nothing about the fine imposed at the initial sentencing. Given this, the subsequent reference to “one-third of the original sentence” is better read to mean the probation component of the original sentence, and not the whole sentence.
I disagree with both the Court and The Chief Justice, however, in their conclusion that the verb “sentence” in the proviso means only “sentence to imprisonment.” Given the statutory text and structure, the verb “sentence” can mean either “sentence to probation” or “sentence to imprisonment.” It follows, in my view, that the drug proviso calls for a mandatory minimum sentence equal to a probation term one-third the length of the original term of probation.
Before 1984, fines and imprisonment were the only sentences in the federal system; probation, by contrast, was an alternative to sentencing. See 18 U. S. C. § 3651 (1982). In the Sentencing Reform Act of 1984, Congress altered this understanding and made probation a kind of sentence. See § 3561(a) (defendant “may be sentenced to a term of proba*62tion”); United States Sentencing Commission, Guidelines Manual ch. 7, pt. A2(a), p. 321 (Nov. 1993) (USSG) (“[TJhe Sentencing Reform Act recognized probation as a sentence in itself”). Probation no longer entails some deviation from a presumptive sentence of imprisonment, as the facts of this case illustrate. Granderson’s conviction for destruction of mail, when considered in light of his criminal history category, placed him in Zone A of the Guidelines Sentencing Table, which carries a presumptive sentence of 0 to 6 months. The Sentencing Guidelines authorize a sentence of probation for defendants falling within Zone A, see USSG § 5B1.1(a)(1), and set a maximum probation term of five years for the subset of Zone A defendants of which Granderson is a member, see §5B1.2(a)(l). For defendants like Granderson, then, probation is a sentence available at the initial sentencing, no less so than a sentence of imprisonment. See 18 U. S. C. § 3553(a)(4) (the court, in determining sentence, “shall consider . . . the kinds of sentence and the sentencing range established for the applicable category of offense ... as set forth in the guidelines”) (emphasis added). Because the term “to sentence,” if left unadorned, can bear any one of three meanings, Congress took care, as a general matter, to specify the type of punishment called for when it used “sentence” as a verb in Chapter 227 of Title 18, the sentencing provisions of the criminal code. See, e. g., § 3561(a) (“sentenced to a term of probation”), § 3572(e) (“sentenced to pay a fine”), § 3583(a) (“impos[e] a sentence to a term of imprisonment”).
Congress was less careful when drafting the provision now before us, which does not specify whether the district court should impose a fine, imprisonment, or another term of probation when revoking the original term of probation on account of drug possession. The Government brushes aside this significant ambiguity, contending that “the language of the statute, in context,” demonstrates that Congress “plainly intended” to require imprisonment. Brief for United States *6314, 15. The Government is correct to say that we must examine the context of the proviso to ascertain its meaning. See Davis v. Michigan Dept. of Treasury, 489 U. S. 803, 809 (1989). Close attention to that context, however, leads me to conclude that Congress did not intend to require imprisonment upon revocation of the original term of probation.
Congress enacted the drug proviso as § 7303(a)(2) of the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1988 (1988 Act). Pub. L. 100-690, 102 Stat. 4181, 4464. Section 7303(b)(2) of the 1988 Act, which concerns defendants serving a term of supervised release, provides that “[i]f the defendant is found by the court to be in the possession of a controlled substance, the court shall terminate the term of supervised release and require the defendant to serve in prison not less than one-third of the term of supervised release.” 102 Stat. 4464, codified at 18 U. S. C. § 3583(g) (emphasis added).
Sections 7303(a)(2) and (b)(2) are, as the Government puts it, “parallel and closely related.” Brief for United States 26. Both pertain to the consequences of drug possession for defendants under some form of noncustodial supervision. They differ, of course, in one fundamental respect: Section 7303(b)(2) explicitly provides for a revocation sentence of imprisonment, while § 7303(a)(2) does not. The difference is significant. “'[WJhere Congress includes particular language in one section of a statute but omits it in another section of the same Act, it is generally presumed that Congress acts intentionally and purposely in the disparate inclusion or exclusion.’” Gozlon-Peretz v. United States, 498 U. S. 395, 404 (1991), quoting Russello v. United States, 464 U. S. 16, 23 (1983) (internal quotation marks omitted). The presumption loses some of its force when the sections in question are dissimilar and scattered at distant points of a lengthy and complex enactment. But in this case, given the parallel structure of §§ 7303(a)(2) and (b)(2) and the fact that Congress enacted both provisions in the same section of the same Act, the presumption is strong. The disparate use of the *64term “to serve in prison” is compelling evidence that Congress, intended to mandate incarceration as a revocation punishment in § 7303(b)(2), but not in § 7303(a)(2) (the § 3565(a) drug proviso).
The Government interposes a structural argument of its own. Before enactment of the drug proviso in the 1988 Act, § 3565(a) consisted only of subsections (a)(1) and (a)(2), which, for all relevant purposes, took the same form as they do now. Those provisions grant courts two options for defendants who violate probation conditions that do not involve drugs or guns. Section 3565(a)(1) permits a court to continue the defendant on probation, with or without extending the term or modifying or enlarging the conditions. As an alternative, § 3565(a)(2) permits a court to “revoke the sentence of probation and impose any other sentence that was available ... at the time of the initial sentencing.” According to the Government, the two provisions make clear that the consequence of revocation under § 3565(a)(2) is that, in light of § 3565(a)(1), the court must impose a sentence other than probation, namely imprisonment. The meaning borne by the phrase “revoke the sentence of probation” in § 3565(a)(2), the Government concludes, must carry over when the same phrase appears in the drug proviso.
This argument, which the Court accepts, see ante, at 45, is not convincing. The conclusion that § 3565(a)(2) demands imprisonment upon revocation of the original sentence of probation does not rest upon anything inherent in the phrase “revoke the sentence of probation.” Rather, it follows from the structure of §§ 3565(a)(1) and (a)(2). Congress set off subsection (a)(2) as an alternative to subsection (a)(1), which provides for every conceivable probation option. Thus, in order to make sense of the statutory scheme, § 3565(a)(2) should be read to require a punishment of something other than probation: imprisonment. That consequence, however, is due to the juxtaposition of subsection (a)(2) with subsec*65tion (a)(1), not to Congress’ use of the phrase “revoke the sentence of probation” in § 3565(a)(2). Taken by itself, that phrase requires termination of the original sentence of probation, but does not indicate the kind of sentence that must be imposed in its place. The meaning assumed by the phrase “revoke the sentence of probation” in the particular context of § 3565(a)(2), then, does not travel when the same phrase appears in a different context.
The Government’s argument that “revoke the sentence of probation,” standing alone, must import a sentence of imprisonment also fails to account for how similar language is used in § 7303(b)(2) of the 1988 Act. That provision, as noted above, states that “the court shall terminate the term of supervised release and require the defendant to serve in prison not less than one-third of the term of supervised release” if a defendant is found in possession of drugs. 18 U. S. C. § 3583(g) (emphasis added). The statutory text suggests that a subsequent sentence of imprisonment is not implicit in the phrase “the court shall terminate the term of supervised release”; had it been, Congress would not have felt it necessary to mandate imprisonment in an explicit manner. So there is little reason to think that Congress believed imprisonment to be implicit in the parallel phrase “the court shall revoke the sentence of probation” in the § 3565(a) drug proviso, § 7303(a)(2) of the 1988 Act.
The Government’s view suffers from a final infirmity. The term “original sentence” refers to the sentence of probation imposed at the initial sentencing. So if the proviso imposed a minimum punishment of incarceration, the length of incarceration must be tied to the length of the revoked sentence of probation. That would be an odd result. “ ‘[IJmprisonment is an ‘intrinsically different’ form of punishment’ ” than probation. Blanton v. North Las Vegas, 489 U. S. 538, 542 (1989), quoting Muniz v. Hoffman, 422 U. S. 454, 477 (1975). Without belaboring the point, probation is a form of “condi*66tional liberty,” Black v. Romano, 471 U. S. 606, 611 (1985), while imprisonment is nothing of the sort. Transforming a sentence of probation into a prison term via some mathematical formula would, in the words of one court to have considered this issue, constitute a form of “legal alchemy.” United States v. Gordon, 961 F. 2d 426, 433 (CA3 1992). In all events, it is not what one would expect in the ordinary course.
The Chief Justice is correct, of course, to say that it would not be irrational for Congress to tie a mandatory minimum sentence of imprisonment to the length of the original probation term. Post, at 75. He is also correct to observe that Congress would have been within its powers to write such a result into law, and that Congress indeed provided for a similar result in § 7303(b)(2) of the 1988 Act, 18 U. S. C. § 3583(g). Post, at 76. But these observations do not speak to the only relevant question: whether Congress did so in the text of the § 3565(a) drug proviso, viewed in light of the statutory structure. For all of the above reasons, in my view it did not.
In sum, the drug proviso does not mandate incarceration, but rather must be read to permit a revocation sentence of probation. Concluding that the mandatory minimum sentence is a term of imprisonment would be inconsistent with this reading, and would also lead to the anomaly of tying the length of the mandated prison term to the original term of probation. It follows that the mandatory minimum sentence required by the drug proviso is a probation term equal to one-third the length of the original term of probation. Given that Congress did not eliminate the possibility of incarceration (for example, by drafting the proviso to require a “sentence of probation”), the proviso gives the district court the discretion to impose any prison term otherwise available under the other portions of § 3565(a), which is more severe than the mandatory minimum sentence of probation.
*67II
It is unfortunate that Congress has drafted a criminal statute that is far from transparent; more unfortunate that the Court has interpreted it to require imprisonment when the text and structure call for a different result; but most unfortunate that the Court has chosen such a questionable path to reach its destination. I speak of the Court’s speculation that Congress drafted the § 3565(a) drug proviso with the pre1984 federal sentencing regime in mind. See ante, at 52-53. Reading the proviso to require Granderson to serve a 2-month mandatory minimum sentence of imprisonment, the Court reasons, “would fit the [pre-1984] scheme precisely.” Ante, at 53. And viewing the proviso in that light, the Court adds, would avoid problems with both Granderson’s and the Government’s interpretations. See ibid. Although the Court purports not to place much reliance upon this venture in interpretive archaeology, its extended discussion of the matter suggests otherwise.
This interpretive technique, were it to take hold, would be quite a novel addition to the traditional rules that govern our interpretation of criminal statutes. Some Members of the Court believe that courts may look to “the language and structure, legislative history, and motivating policies” when reading a criminal statute in a manner adverse to a criminal defendant. See United States v. R. L. C., 503 U. S. 291, 305 (1992) (plurality opinion) (internal quotation marks omitted). Others would eschew reliance upon legislative history and nebulous motivating policies when construing criminal statutes. See id., at 308-310 (Scalia, J., concurring). But, to my knowledge, none of us has ever relied upon some vague intuition of what Congress “might . . . have had in mind” (ante, at 52) when drafting a criminal law. And I am certain that we have not read a criminal statute against a criminal defendant by attributing to Congress a mindset that reflects a statutory framework that Congress itself had discarded over four years earlier.
*68Of course, the Court thinks it has done Granderson and probationers like him a great favor with its guesswork: Assuming that the drug proviso mandates incarceration, the Court’s intuitions lead it to conclude that the mandatory minimum sentence of imprisonment here is 2, rather than 20, months. But in its rush to achieve what it views as justice in this case, the Court has missed a broader point: The statute, by word and design, does not mandate a punishment of imprisonment on revocation. In my respectful submission, had the Court adhered to the text and structure of the statute Congress enacted and the President signed, rather than given effect to its own intuitions of what might have been on Congress’ mind at the time, it would have come to a different conclusion. See Deal v. United States, 508 U. S. 129, 136-137 (1993). And the fortuity that Granderson himself does not contend that the proviso permits a revocation sentence of probation, see ante, at 54, n. 12, is no reason to overlook that option here, given that our interpretation of the statute binds all probationers, not just Granderson. Cf. Elder v. Holloway, 510 U. S. 510, 514-516, and n. 3 (1994).
Perhaps the result the Court reaches today may be sensible as a matter of policy, and may even reflect what some in Congress hoped to accomplish. That result, however, does not accord with the text of the statute Congress saw fit to enact. Put in simple terms, if indeed Congress intended to require the mandatory minimum sentence of imprisonment the Court surmises, Congress fired a blank. See Puerto Rico Dept. of Consumer Affairs v. ISLA Petroleum Corp., 485 U. S. 495, 501 (1988) (“[Ujnenacted approvals, beliefs, and desires are not laws”). It is beyond our province to rescue Congress from its drafting errors, and to provide for what we might think, perhaps along with some Members of Congress, is the preferred result. See Smith v. United States, 508 U. S. 223, 247, n. 4 (1993) (Scalia, J., dissenting) (“Stretching language in order to write a more effective statute than Congress devised is not an exercise we should *69indulge in”); Pavelic & LeFlore v. Marvel Entertainment Group, Div. of Cadence Industries Corp., 493 U. S. 120, 126 (1989) (“Our task is to apply the text, not to improve upon it”); United States v. Locke, 471 U. S. 84, 95 (1985) (“[T]he fact that Congress might have acted with greater clarity or foresight does not give courts a carte blanche to redraft statutes in an effort to achieve that which Congress is perceived to have failed to do”). This admonition takes on a particular importance when the Court construes criminal laws. “[Because of the seriousness of criminal penalties, and because criminal punishment usually represents the moral condemnation of the community, legislatures and not courts should define criminal activity,” United States v. Bass, 404 U. S. 336, 348 (1971), and set the punishments therefor, see Bifulco v. United States, 447 U. S. 381 (1980).
Under any of the three interpretations set forth in the opinions filed today, there are bound to be cases where the mandatory sentence will make little sense or appear anomalous when compared with sentences imposed in similar cases. Some incongruities, however, are inherent in any statute providing for mandatory minimum sentences.
In my view, it is not necessary to invoke the rule of lenity here, for the text and structure of the statute yield but one proper answer. But assuming, as the Court does, that the rule comes into play, I would have thought that it demands the interpretation set forth above. For these reasons, I concur only in the judgment.

The Court’s reply to this is that since “[t]he term of probation .. . was imposed in lieu of a sentence of imprisonment, not in lieu of a fine,” its revocation “implies replacing the sentence of probation with a sentence of imprisonment.” Ante, at 54, n. 12. I do not know why an implication would inhere in the proviso which contradicts the body of § 3565(a)(2) to which the proviso is attached. The latter provides that the court may “revoke the sentence of probation and impose any other sentence that was available ... at the time of the initial sentencing” (emphasis added). Presumably the Court would concede that “any other sentence” includes a fine — in which case its discernment of some implication that revoked probation may be replaced by only prison time must be wrong.
Justice Kennedy makes a similar defense. He refuses to consider the fine component because “[t]he proviso instructs the district court to ‘revoke the sentence of probation,’ but says nothing about the fine imposed at the initial sentencing,” post, at 61. There is, however, clearly no requirement that only what has been revoked can be the baseline for measuring the requisite minimum — for even the wwrevoked (because already served) portion of the probation period counts. Justice Kennedy’s argument reduces, therefore, to the contention that for some unexplained reason the requisite minimum replacement for the revoked “probation component” of the original sentence can be measured only by that same component. This imperative is not to be found in the language of the statute; to the contrary, interchangeability of fines and probation is suggested by the body of § 3565(a)(2) quoted above. Here, it seems to me, Justice Kennedy simply abandons the text and adopts an intuited limitation remarkably similar to those for which he criticizes the Court and the dissent.