In a unanimous decision, the U.S. Supreme Court dealt a legal setback to the Biden administration and affirmed that courts may impose concurrent prison sentences in some gun‑crime cases—a notable ruling that even Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson joined in. The 9–0 (nine to zero) ruling construes certain provisions of federal law, opening the door to shorter sentences in select cases.

At the heart of the case is a clash between two subsections of 18 U.S.C. § 924. Subsection (c) mandates that any prison term imposed under that subsection “shall not run concurrently with any other term of imprisonment.” In contrast, Subsection (j)—a later addition to the statute—covers other offenses and lacks language forbidding concurrent sentences. Because of that tension, lower courts have faced conflicting interpretations on whether all gun‑related sentences must run consecutively.

The case originated with Efraín Lora, a defendant convicted of aiding and abetting drug trafficking and using a firearm in the commission of violent crime, among other charges. In 2002, Lora and accomplices were implicated in cocaine distribution and the killing of a rival dealer in New York City. A federal judge, relying on § 924(c), sentenced Lora first for the conspiracy charge and then imposed an additional five years for the firearm offense, refusing to permit those sentences to run concurrently. An appeals court upheld that arrangement, even though Lora argued that the statute did not clearly apply the § 924(c) consecutive‑term rule to his aiding and abetting offense.

Lora’s challenge made its way to the Supreme Court, where the justices unanimously sided with him. Justice Jackson’s opinion emphasized that the § 924(c) rule applies only to penalties strictly under subsection (c) itself. Because subsection (j) exists outside that structure and does not incorporate the consecutive‑sentence requirement, courts may exercise discretion and allow sentences to run concurrently in cases that involve both subsections. She warned that fusing the two provisions as the government urged could lead to nonsensical results—“in some cases, the maximum sentence would be lower than the minimum sentence.”

As a result of the decision, Lora’s sentence was vacated and the case was sent back to a lower court for resentencing under the correct statutory reading.

The ruling has significant implications for the criminal justice system. It reinforces the principle that courts generally retain discretion in sentencing unless Congress clearly mandates otherwise. By preserving that default, the Court has expanded legal breathing room in cases that straddle § 924(c) and related provisions. Lora’s attorneys celebrated the decision, saying it restores a more balanced approach to sentencing where “the defendant’s sentence fits both the crime and the individual.”

During oral arguments, Justice Jackson had already flagged key concerns. She questioned the government’s interpretation, asking why subsection (j) should be bound by § 924(c)’s penalty structure when it does not explicitly incorporate that mandate. The government responded that the statute’s broader context implied connection, but Jackson pushed back, saying Congress could have been clearer. The exchange underscored the court’s focus on strict textual interpretation.

By siding unanimously, the Court sent a strong signal that the statutory language—as written—must govern, not expansive judicial infusions. Moreover, the decision highlights that even when precedent appears settled, statutory ambiguity can open dramatic opportunities for reevaluation.

For the Biden administration, the ruling represents a rare defeat in the criminal law domain. Even though it may not broadly apply to higher-tier or more severe offenses, the decision matters for many cases involving firearm enhancements and ancillary charges. Defense attorneys are already eyeing cases where consecutive sentencing has been mandatory under § 924(c). Some may ask courts to revisit rulings made under that regime.

The decision also complements other recent high-court rulings that reaffirm statutory interpretation limits and guard against overly aggressive prosecutorial arguments. In an era of contentious debates over criminal justice reform, mandatory minimums, and prosecutorial power, this ruling underscores the Court’s continued insistence on textualism and legal precision.

In the end, this unanimous decision marks a meaningful shift in how overlapping criminal statutes will be applied in sentencing. It restores discretion, protects against statutory overreach, and reminds the government that clear legislative design matters. As Lora’s case returns to the lower courts, judges will need to reevaluate his and similar sentences in light of the correct reading of § 924(c) and § 924(j). The broader ripple effects may reach many pending cases where gun charges and ancillary offenses intersect—and could reshape outcomes for a generation of federal defendants.