Kimbrough v. United States

In Kimbrougb v. United States (2007), the U.S. Supreme Court addressed the long-standing sentencing disparity between crack and powder cocaine. Federal drug laws in the latter half of the 1980s set penalties for crack cocaine sales and possession that were significantly more punitive than those for powdered cocaine. These laws were widely regarded as racist because they disproportionately affected African Americans, who were more likely to be sentenced for crack cocaine possession and sales than were non-African Americans. The Kimbrougb Court decided whether judges could sentence people for crack cocaine violations outside the ranges prescribed in federal sentencing guidelines.

The Omnibus Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1986 established mandatory prison sentences for violations of heroin and cocaine statutes and created marked sentencing disparities for the sale of crack and powder cocaine. The Omnibus Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1988 also created sentencing disparities for the simple possession of crack and powder cocaine. The crack/powder cocaine sentencing disparity rested on the assumptions that crack cocaine was more harmful to users than powder cocaine and that crack users and dealers were more likely [Page 431]to be violent than users and dealers of other drugs. This sentencing disparity was commonly referred to as the “100-to-l ratio” because according to federal laws, a conviction for possessing or selling 5 grams of crack cocaine—the weight of two pennies—carried the same penalty of 5 years imprisonment as a conviction for possessing or selling 500 grams of powder cocaine—a little more than 1 pound.

In the mid-1980s, a gram of powder cocaine could be purchased for $100, while a vial of crack cocaine could be purchased for as little as $5. Hence, crack cocaine became popular with drug users in poor urban areas—largely African American—and was inextricably linked with pernicious, stereotypie images of violent inner-city African American youth. The 100-to-l sentencing disparity predominantly affected small-time, local drug sellers in African American communities instead of the major drug traffickers who sold the powdered cocaine that was converted into crack in those neighborhoods. Because of the federal sentencing disparity, crack cocaine sellers could spend more time in prison than the wholesale cocaine distributors who supplied the drug. Although nearly two thirds of crack cocaine users were Latina/o or White, African Americans constituted nearly 85% of the people who were convicted for selling or possessing crack cocaine and who were sentenced to lengthy prison terms.

On April 10, 1995, the U.S. Sentencing Commission proposed amendments to the federal sentencing guidelines that would reduce the sentencing disparity between crack and powder cocaine. Speaking on behalf of the Department of Justice, Attorney General Janet Reno was vehemently opposed to the reduction. The Clinton administration was successful in its opposition to the amendments, and for the first time in history, Congress rejected the Sentencing Commission's recommendations. In the late 1990s, the Senate thwarted both the Sentencing Commission's subsequent efforts to reduce the crack/powder cocaine ratio from 100-to-l, to 5-to-l, as well as the Clinton administration's efforts to reduce the ratio to 10-to-l, which reflected a change in the president's position on the issue.

...