Mandatory minimum sentences have, for years, been the subject of complaints from the bench, the defense bar and academics. But this year, these criticisms are taking hold—and all three branches of the federal government are getting into the fray.
Some district court judges are in open rebellion against mandatory minimums and the Sentencing Guidelines that are tied to them. For example, in sentencing a defendant earlier this year for a drug trafficking crime, Judge John Gleeson of the Eastern District of New York rejected the guidelines-recommended range because the guidelines are tied to the quantity-driven mandatory minimums.1 Judge Jack Weinstein of the same district issued a 400-page sentencing memorandum, finding that the five-year statutory minimum for distributing child pornography constituted cruel and unusual punishment under the Eighth Amendment. Remarkably, only a few hours after the Second Circuit reversed Weinstein’s sentence and required him to impose at least the five-year mandatory minimum, Weinstein issued a nine-page memorandum forcefully reiterating his view that the mandatory minimum sentence was unjust.2
