The Supreme Court issued a unanimous 9-0 ruling, including support from Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, in favor of Efrain Lora, who had challenged his prison sentence for gun-related crimes. Lora had been convicted of aiding and abetting a murder during a drug trafficking operation and was sentenced under two subsections of federal law (18 U.S.C. 924). The original sentence included a 25-year term followed by an additional five years, based on a reading of Subsection (c), which mandates consecutive sentences. However, Subsection (j)—under which Lora was also charged—does not contain that same restriction. Justice Jackson, writing for the Court, clarified that Subsection (j) operates independently and does not require the mandatory consecutive sentences laid out in Subsection (c). The Court vacated Lora’s sentence and remanded it for reconsideration.

This ruling restores judicial discretion for certain criminal cases and reinforces the importance of applying laws as written. Lora’s legal team celebrated the decision, stating it ensures sentencing fits both the crime and the individual. The ruling highlights how statutory interpretation matters in criminal law: while Subsection (c) specifies mandatory consecutive sentences, Subsection (j) does not, and combining them would create legal contradictions. During oral arguments, Jackson questioned why the government assumed Section (j) should inherit penalties from (c) without clear legislative wording. The Court’s decision underscores a commitment to following the exact text Congress enacts, preserving fairness in sentencing.