Ruth Bader Ginsburg flips, supporting conservative stance in criminal sentencing decision
Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote in her dissent that the Supreme Court reached its decision 'by adopting a backward-looking approach'
Your support helps us to tell the story
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.
At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.
The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.
Your support makes all the difference.Ruth Bader Ginsburg has sided with the Supreme Court’s conservative justices in a criminal sentencing case that ended with a 5-4 decision.
The court determined a defendant can be sentenced for violating their supervised release — even if that release was to expire during their incarceration while facing new charges.
Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote in her dissent that the Supreme Court reached its decision “by adopting a backward-looking approach.”
“Because I cannot agree that a person ‘is imprisoned in connection with a conviction’ before any conviction has occurred, I respectfully dissent,” she added.
Ms Ginsburg joined Justices Clarence Thomas, Brett Kavanaugh, John Roberts and Samuel Alito in the majority decision.
Meanwhile, Neil Gorsuch — a Supreme Court justice nominated by Donald Trump — sided with the court’s liberal justices.
In his majority opinion, Mr Thomas wrote “time in pretrial detention constitutes supervised release only if the charges against the defendant are dismissed or the defendant is acquitted."
“This ensures that the defendant is not faulted for conduct he might not have committed,” he added, “while otherwise giving full effect to the lawful judgement previously imposed on the defendant."
The decision arrived in the case of Jason J Mont v The United States. The defendant had served 84 months as part of a conviction surrounding felony gun and drug charges, but he faced new additional charges in 2015 and 2016.
Despite being scheduled for a five-year supervised release due to end in March 2017, the defendant was determined to have violated his supervised release and had another prison sentence imposed on him by a district court.
Attorneys for Mont argued the court had repeatedly delayed his hearing until after the supervised release term had expired. Mont is now scheduled to serve another 42 months in prison beginning immediately after the sentencing for his latest charges.
Join our commenting forum
Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies
Comments