Skip to content
Project Curia
Supreme Court decisions
No. 22-340Mar 15, 2024Crime and Law EnforcementAffirmed

The question

Whether a defendant is disqualified from safety-valve relief under 18 U.S.C. 3553(f)(1) only when he has all three criminal-history characteristics in combination, or whether the presence of any one of the three disqualifies him.

Pulsifer v. United States

What the Court decided

The Court affirmed the Eighth Circuit and adopted the Government's reading of the safety-valve statute. A defendant is eligible for relief from a mandatory minimum under 18 U.S.C. 3553(f)(1) only if he satisfies each of the provision's three conditions, meaning he must lack more than four criminal-history points, lack a prior three-point offense, and lack a prior two-point violent offense. Reading the word "and" to require all three characteristics in combination, as Pulsifer urged, would render Subparagraph A superfluous because any defendant with a three-point offense and a two-point offense will always exceed four points. Because Pulsifer had two prior three-point offenses, he did not qualify.

How the justices split

6-3
In favor 6Against 3
Kagan
Roberts
Thomas
Alito
Kavanaugh
Barrett
Gorsuch
Sotomayor
Jackson

The Court's opinion

Kagan, joined by Roberts, Thomas, Alito, Kavanaugh, Barrett

The text and context of Paragraph (f)(1), read against the Sentencing Guidelines, support only one construction. The paragraph creates an eligibility checklist stating three necessary conditions, each of which must be satisfied for relief. Reading the provision to require all three characteristics in combination would render Subparagraph A superfluous, because a defendant with a three-point offense and a two-point offense will always exceed four criminal-history points. The canon against surplusage refutes that reading.

Dissenting

Gorsuch, joined by Sotomayor, Jackson

The dissent read the word "and" in Paragraph (f)(1) to join the three subparagraphs into a single disqualifying combination, so a defendant is ineligible only if he has the characteristics of Subparagraphs A, B, and C together.

How we know · 5 sourced claims
  • The Court held that a defendant is eligible for safety-valve relief under 18 U.S.C. 3553(f)(1) only if he satisfies each of the provision's three conditions.

    Source: syllabus, Held

  • Pulsifer had two prior three-point offenses totaling six criminal-history points, which the Government argued disqualified him.

    Source: syllabus, Held

  • Pulsifer's reading would render Subparagraph A superfluous because a defendant with a three-point offense and a two-point offense will always have more than four criminal-history points.

    Source: syllabus, Held

  • Justice Kagan delivered the opinion of the Court, joined by Roberts, Thomas, Alito, Kavanaugh, and Barrett.

    Source: syllabus, lineup

  • Justice Gorsuch filed a dissenting opinion, joined by Sotomayor and Jackson.

    Source: syllabus, lineup

Read the opinion on supremecourt.gov