| Dorsey v. United States | |
|---|---|
 | |
| Argued April 17, 2012 Decided June 21, 2012 | |
| Full case name | Edward Dorsey, Sr., Petitioner v. United States and Corey A. Hill, Petitioner v. United States |
| Docket no. | 10-699 |
| Citations | 567 U.S. 260 (more) 132 S. Ct. 2321; 183 L. Ed. 2d 281; 2012 U.S. LEXIS 4664; 80 U.S.L.W. 4500 |
| Case history | |
| Prior | Defendant convicted, unpubl.[1] n°2:09-cr-20003 (C.D. Ill. 2010); sentence affirmed sub nom. United States v. Fisher, 635 F.3d 336 (7th Cir. 2011); rehearing en banc denied, 646 F.3d 429 (2011, per curiam) Motion for resentencing denied sub nom. United States v. Hill, unpubl. (N.D. Ill., 2010); affirmed 417 F. App'x 560 (7th Cir. 2011) |
| Holding | |
| As established by the Fair Sentencing Act of 2010, the lower mandatory minimum sentences for crack cocaine crimes apply to defenders who committed their offenses before the enactment of the law while also being sentenced for their offenses after the effective date of the law. | |
| Court membership | |
| |
| Case opinions | |
| Majority | Breyer, joined by Kennedy, Ginsburg, Sotomayor, Kagan |
| Dissent | Scalia, joined by Roberts, Thomas, Alito |
| Laws applied | |
| Fair Sentencing Act of 2010, 124 Stat. 2372 | |
Dorsey v. United States, 567 U.S. 260 (2012), is a Supreme Court of the United States decision in which the Court held that reduced mandatory minimum sentences for "crack cocaine" under the Fair Sentencing Act of 2010 does apply to defendants who committed a crime before the Act went into effect but who were sentenced after that date. The Act's silence on how to apply its new rules, before the effective date or not, caused a split among the Justices on how to interpret its new lenient provisions. Specifically, the case centered on Edward Dorsey, a prior offender who had been convicted of possession before the new rules came into effect but was sentenced after the effective date.
- ^ There was no written opinion