United States v. Edward James Clary
34 F.3d 709 (1994)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A facially neutral law that has a racially disproportionate impact does not violate the Equal Protection Clause unless it can be proven that the legislature enacted the law with a discriminatory purpose.
Facts:
- Edward James Clary was charged with possession with intent to distribute cocaine base (crack cocaine).
- Federal statute 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(A)(iii) imposes a ten-year mandatory minimum sentence for possessing 50 grams of crack cocaine.
- The same statute requires possession of 5,000 grams of powder cocaine to trigger the same ten-year minimum sentence, creating a 100-to-1 quantity ratio.
- During the period when Congress was passing the statute, news articles submitted into the Congressional Record portrayed crack dealers as young, Black males.
- Congress conducted limited hearings and acted with haste in passing the enhanced penalties for crack cocaine.
- Statistical evidence showed that nationally, 92.6% of defendants convicted of crack cocaine charges were African American, while the percentages were largely reversed for powder cocaine offenses.
Procedural Posture:
- Edward James Clary was charged in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri.
- Clary entered a guilty plea to possession with intent to distribute cocaine base.
- Before sentencing, Clary filed a motion arguing the 100-to-1 crack-to-powder sentencing ratio violated his Fifth Amendment Equal Protection rights.
- The district court held a four-day hearing and ruled in favor of Clary, finding the statute unconstitutional.
- The district court sentenced Clary to four years imprisonment, departing from the ten-year mandatory minimum.
- The United States (appellant) appealed the sentence to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, with Clary as the appellee.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the 100-to-1 sentencing ratio between crack and powder cocaine, which results in a significant racially disparate impact on African Americans, violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fifth Amendment?
Opinions:
Majority - John R. Gibson
No, the 100-to-1 sentencing ratio between crack and powder cocaine does not violate the Equal Protection Clause. A law with a disproportionate adverse impact on a racial minority is unconstitutional only if that effect can be traced to a discriminatory purpose. The challenger must prove that Congress selected this course of action 'because of,' not merely 'in spite of,' its adverse effects on an identifiable group. Here, the evidence presented, including statistics on disparate impact, the legislative history, and arguments about 'unconscious racism,' falls short of establishing that Congress acted with a racially discriminatory motive. Congress had rational, non-racial motives for the distinction, such as the perceived potency, addictiveness, and marketability of crack. The evidence of a hasty legislative process is as easily explained by the seriousness of the perceived drug crisis as by racial animus.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces the high evidentiary bar required to prove an equal protection violation for a facially neutral law. By rejecting arguments based on 'unconscious racism' and foreseeable disparate impact, the court solidifies the 'discriminatory purpose' standard from cases like Arlington Heights and Feeney. This makes it exceedingly difficult to challenge criminal statutes based on their racially disparate outcomes, requiring challengers to find direct or compelling circumstantial evidence of racial animus in the legislative intent, rather than relying on the law's real-world effects. The ruling significantly narrows the avenues for equal protection challenges to sentencing laws that perpetuate racial inequality.
