Supreme Court Hands Biden Another Stinging Defeat, Limits Harsh Gun Crime Sentencing
The U.S. Supreme Court delivered a unanimous blow to former President Joe Biden’s Justice Department, striking down a federal provision that had been used to stack harsher prison sentences for certain gun-related crimes.
In a 9–0 opinion — joined even by Biden’s own nominee, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson — the Court ruled that individuals convicted under certain firearm provisions could receive concurrent rather than consecutive prison terms.
“Congress could certainly have designed the penalty scheme at issue here differently. But Congress did not do any of these things. And we must implement the design Congress chose,” Justice Jackson wrote for the Court.
The Statute in Question
The dispute centered on two subsections of 18 U.S.C. 924. Subsection (c) specifically requires consecutive prison terms for certain gun-related offenses. Subsection (j), enacted later, outlines additional crimes and penalties but does not explicitly forbid concurrent sentences.
District judges normally have discretion in whether to run sentences concurrently or consecutively, unless federal law demands otherwise. Biden’s DOJ had argued that the harsher standard should apply across the board. The Court disagreed.
The Case of Efrain Lora
The challenge was brought by Efrain Lora, convicted of aiding and abetting a drug trafficker who used a firearm during a violent crime. Lora and his associates were involved in cocaine trafficking and, in 2002, murdered a rival dealer in New York City during a territorial dispute.
Judge Paul Gardephe, appointed by President George W. Bush, initially sentenced Lora to 25 years on the drug conspiracy count plus an additional five years for the firearm-related offense, interpreting the law as requiring consecutive sentences. An appeals court upheld the ruling.
Lora countered that subsection (j) did not impose the same mandatory consecutive-sentencing requirement. Despite his argument, Biden’s DOJ pressed for the tougher standard to remain intact.
The Supreme Court unanimously rejected that approach.
“Subsection (c)’s consecutive-sentence mandate applies only to the terms of imprisonment prescribed within subsection (c). A sentence imposed under subsection (j) does not qualify,” Jackson explained. “Combining the two subsections would set them on a collision course; indeed, in some cases, the maximum sentence would be lower than the minimum sentence.”
The ruling vacates Lora’s sentence and sends the case back to the lower court for resentencing.
Restoring Judicial Discretion
Defense attorney Lawrence Rosenberg praised the decision:
“We are thrilled that the Court preserved the longstanding default of discretion in criminal sentencing, restoring courts’ discretion to impose either concurrent or consecutive sentences in this case and others like it. The Court’s decision to enforce the plain text that Congress enacted will help ensure that a defendant’s sentence fits both the crime and the individual.”
Even during oral arguments, Justice Jackson had expressed doubts about Biden’s Justice Department’s interpretation.
“I don’t understand why the government believes in this case that it’s entitled to the penalty structure that comes with Section (c) … when (j) doesn’t say and it could easily have said,” Jackson told Assistant to the Solicitor General Erica Ross.
Ross conceded, “My point was simply that it also doesn’t say what [Lora] is suggesting.”
A Clear Rebuke to Biden’s DOJ
This unanimous decision underscores a pattern: the Biden administration’s aggressive attempts to expand federal power repeatedly falter in front of the high court. Even justices appointed by Democrats are unwilling to stretch statutory language to fit the administration’s agenda.
President Donald Trump has emphasized the importance of judges who respect the plain meaning of the law, and this case reinforces the necessity of a Court that checks government overreach.