Brief filed: 05/30/2025
Documents
Barrett v. United States
United States Supreme Court; Case No. 24-5774
Argument(s)
Federal courts have long “presumed that Congress does not intend for a defendant to be cumulatively punished for two crimes where one crime is a lesser included offense of the other.” Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224, 231 (1998). That presumption, recognized in Blockburger v. United States, 284 U.S. 299 (1932), is meant to be a strong one, as it guards “not only the specific guarantee against double jeopardy, but also the constitutional principle of separation of powers.” Whalen v. United States, 445 U.S. 684, 689 (1980). The threshold for overcoming the presumption, therefore, is high. Cumulative punishments may be imposed only “if Congress clearly indicates that it intended to allow courts to impose them.” Rutledge v. United States, 517 U.S. 292, 303 (1996). After studying the legislative history of 18 U.S.C. § 924(j), amicus curiae NACDL has identified no clear evidence of congressional intent to authorize cumulative punishments.
Author(s)
Joshua L. Dratel, Co-Chair, NACDL Amicus Curiae Committee, Law Offices of Dratel and Lewis, New York, NY; Gregory Cui and Wynne Muscatine Graham, Roderick & Solange Macarthur Justice Center, Washington, DC
