Rounding up some accounts of lengthy SCOTUS oral argument in Pulsifer safety valve case

Regular readers know I have been talking up SCOTUS’s first case for oral argument this Term, Pulsifer v. United States, a statutory interpretation case dealing with a (too) complicated sentencing provision of the FIRST STEP Act.  Perhaps because it was the only case on the argument calendar yesterday, the Justice spent almost a full two hours debating the meaning of the word “and” with two capable counsel.  The full oral argument recording and transcript are available here at the SCOTUS website. 

Here are some press discussion of the oral argument in Pulsifer and surrounding realities:

From Courthouse News Service, “Courthouse Rock: Justices play conjunction junction on first day of term“

From The Hill, “Supreme Court opens term with case on prison terms for drug offenders“

From Mother Jones, “Does ‘And’ Mean ‘And’? Or ‘Or’? The Supreme Court Will Decide.“

From Roll Call, “Congressional conjunction turns Supreme Court argument into grammar class; Justices weigh if ‘and’ means ‘and’ in a criminal sentencing law“

From the New York Times, “On First Day of New Term, Supreme Court Hears Debate Over First Step Act” 

From Slate, “The Supreme Court’s Oddest Pairing Comes out Swinging on Behalf of Criminal Defendants“

Based on a too-quick listen to the full oral argument, I am inclined to guess that this case will end up with a 5-4 vote in favor of the government’s proposed statutory interpretation that would restrict the reach of the FIRST STEP Act’s expansion of the statutory safety valve exception to drug mandatory minimum sentencing terms.  But I would not entirely discount the possibility that the four Justices who seemed most favorable toward the defendant’s reading, particularly Justices Gorsuch and Jackson, might find a way to peel off a key fifth vote (especially since the Chief was pretty quiet throughout and Justice Kagan hinted toward the end that she might be less sure than she seemed at the outset).  

I suppose I can say with certainty that this case will not be resolved 9-0 and that the ultimate opinions likely will be of great interest to statutory interpretation fans as well as to sentencing fans.  I also would guess that we will get ruling in early 2024, though this one might take quite a while if lots of Justices decide to write on lots of broader statutory interpretation topics (like the reach of the rule of lenity and/or the use of legislative history and/or corpus linguistics).  Fun times!