On June 26, 2025, the Supreme Court made a key decision in Hewitt v. United States. This 5-4 ruling helps make federal sentencing fairer by applying the 2018 First Step Act’s newer, shorter penalties to people whose earlier sentences were canceled and need a new one. Let’s break it down in a simple, easy-to-understand way and explore why this matters.
What Was the Problem with Old Sentencing Rules?
Before 2018, federal law (18 U.S.C. §924(c)) was very strict for people convicted of using a gun during a violent crime, like a robbery. The first gun charge meant at least 5 years in prison. But if you had more gun charges in the same case, each one added 25 years on top of the others. This was called “stacking,” and it led to extremely long sentences—sometimes 100 years or more. Many people, including judges and lawmakers, thought these sentences were way too harsh and didn’t fit the crime.
In 2018, Congress passed the First Step Act to fix this. The new law said first-time offenders should get 5 years for each gun charge, not 25. This made sentences much shorter. The Act also said it could apply to some cases from before 2018, but only if a sentence wasn’t “set” by the time the law passed in December 2018.
The big question in Hewitt was: What happens if someone got a sentence before 2018, but it was later thrown out (vacated) for legal reasons? When they get a new sentencing, should they face the old 25-year penalties or the new 5-year ones?
The Case: Who Was Involved?
Tony Hewitt, Corey Duffey, and Jarvis Ross were convicted in 2009 for multiple bank robberies and related §924(c) gun charges. For their first gun charge, each got 5 years. But for every extra gun charge, they got 25 years added on, leading to total sentences of over 325 years each. These massive sentences were a result of the old “stacking” rules.
After the First Step Act passed, another Supreme Court case in 2019 (United States v. Davis) changed things. It said the definition of a “violent crime” in the §924(c) law was too vague, so some gun charges were no longer valid. Because of this, Hewitt, Duffey, and Ross got some of their convictions thrown out. Their sentences were also canceled, and they were sent back to court for resentencing.
At their new sentencing hearings, they argued they should get the First Step Act’s 5-year penalties since their old sentences were gone. But the lower court disagreed and used the old 25-year penalties, sticking them with long sentences again.
Listen: Hewitt v. United States Analysis
What Did the Supreme Court Decide?
The Majority’s View
Justice Jackson wrote the majority opinion, joined by four other justices. They said the First Step Act’s new 5-year penalties should apply when a sentence is vacated. The key was the law’s wording: it says the Act applies if a sentence “has not been imposed” by December 2018. The phrase uses the present-perfect tense, which means the sentence has to still exist now. If a sentence is vacated, it’s legally treated like it never happened. So, at a new sentencing, the shorter 5-year penalties should apply.
The majority also said this matches what Congress wanted with the First Step Act. Congress passed the law to stop the unfair “stacking” of 25-year sentences and make sentencing more reasonable. If courts used the old penalties for resentencing, it would go against the Act’s goal of fixing a broken system.
The Dissent’s Side
Justice Alito wrote for the four dissenting justices. They argued the phrase “has not been imposed” just means checking if a sentence was given before December 2018, even if it was later thrown out. They thought the majority’s rule was too broad and could let too many people get shorter sentences, even for cases from long ago. They worried this might stretch the First Step Act further than Congress meant it to go.
Why the Majority’s View Won
The majority leaned on two main points. First, they looked at how the law was written, focusing on the grammar to show a vacated sentence doesn’t count as “imposed.” Second, they thought about the bigger picture: Congress passed the First Step Act because the old stacking rules were widely criticized as unfair. Even judges and the U.S. Sentencing Commission had called the old penalties “inhumane” and “absurd.” The majority wanted to make sure the Act’s fixes reached as many people as possible.
What Does This Ruling Change?
For Hewitt, Duffey, and Ross
This decision is a game-changer for the three men. Instead of 25 years for each extra gun charge, they’ll now get 5 years per charge. This could cut their sentences from over 130 years to potentially decades less, giving them a chance at a shorter time in prison.
For Other People in Similar Situations
The ruling applies to anyone being resentenced after December 2018 for §924(c) gun charges if their original sentence was vacated. This could happen for lots of reasons, like a successful appeal, a change in the law (like the Davis case), or a mistake in the original case. The ruling means:
- Fairer Sentences: People won’t be stuck with the old, overly tough penalties that Congress wanted to get rid of.
- Clear Rules for Judges: Courts can use the 5-year penalty for all first-time §924(c) offenders sentenced after 2018, making the process simpler and more consistent.
- Help for More People: Hundreds of federal defendants with vacated sentences could benefit if they’re resentenced, whether their case was from 10 years ago or just before the Act passed.
Why This Ruling Matters for Fairness
The Hewitt decision is a big step toward a fairer justice system. It shows that when Congress tries to fix harsh laws, courts will interpret those fixes in a way that helps as many people as possible. The First Step Act was passed to correct a system that gave out sentences many saw as cruel. This ruling makes sure that fix applies even to people whose cases are reopened years later.
It also highlights how the First Step Act is still making a difference, seven years after it became law. By letting people with vacated sentences get the new penalties, the ruling ensures the justice system doesn’t cling to outdated, unfair rules.
A Real-World Example
Imagine someone convicted in 2010 for two §924(c) charges. Under the old rules, they’d get 5 years for the first charge and 25 years for the second, totaling 30 years just for the gun charges. If their sentence was vacated in 2020 due to a legal error, this ruling means their new sentence would be 5 years per charge—10 years total for the gun charges. That’s a 20-year difference, which could mean getting out of prison decades earlier.
What’s Next?
This ruling sets a clear rule for federal courts: if a sentence is vacated, the First Step Act’s 5-year penalties apply at resentencing. But it might not be the end of the story. The dissent’s concerns about the ruling being too broad could lead to new cases testing the limits of this decision. For now, though, it’s a win for fairness and a sign that the justice system is moving toward shorter, more reasonable sentences.
The Bottom Line
The Supreme Court’s Hewitt v. United States decision makes federal sentencing fairer for people with §924(c) gun charges. It ensures that anyone resentenced after December 2018 gets the First Step Act’s shorter 5-year penalties instead of the old 25-year ones, as long as their original sentence was thrown out. This supports Congress’s goal of fixing overly harsh sentences and helps create a justice system that’s more just and consistent.
