Supreme Court unanimously limits reach of § 924(c)’s consecutive sentence mandate in federal law

The US Supreme Court this morning handed down a unanimous ruling in Lora v. US, 22-49 (S. Ct. June 16, 2023) (available here), which marks yet another victory for a federal criminal defendant this Term. Here is how the opinion for the Court authored by Justice Jackson gets started:

When a federal court imposes multiple prison sentences, it can typically choose whether to run the sentences concurrently or consecutively. See 18 U.S.C. §3584.  An exception exists in subsection (c) of § 924, which provides that “no term of imprisonment imposed on a person under this subsection shall run concurrently with any other term of imprisonment.” §924(c)(1)(D)(ii).

In this case, we consider whether § 924(c)’s bar on concurrent sentences extends to a sentence imposed under a different subsection: § 924(j).  We hold that it does not. A sentence for a §924(j) conviction therefore can run either concurrently with or consecutively to another sentence.

The full opinion that follows carefully unpacks statutory text to support the Court’s conclusion. I am not sure there is much in the opinion that could have broader impact, but perhaps readers might find some language that could have enduring echoes.