The US Supreme Court on Tuesday heard oral arguments in two cases involving a federal statute that imposes reimprisonment for violations of supervised release terms.

The first, US v. Haymond, asks the court whether a federal law requiring persons convicted of certain crimes and who violated their supervised release terms to return to prison is unconstitutional. The appellee, Haymond, argued the law violates his constitutional right to have his sentenced decided by a jury beyond a reasonable doubt, since a judge decides the sentence using only a preponderance of the evidence. Haymond was initially sentenced to 38 months with 10 years of supervised release for crimes related to possession of child pornography.

The solicitor general for the US argued that the prison requirement is similar to parole and probation, but the justices largely struck down this argument, saying parole is a benefit, whereas supervised release is part of the original sentence. Revoking parole is revoking a benefit, but revoking supervised release is imposing greater punishment. The latter of which Justice Gorsuch seriously questioned why it could not be accomplished with a jury, rather than judge-made determination: “I just don’t understand why the government resists the involvement of a jury of a man’s or woman’s peers.”

The second case, Mont v. US, begs a similar question regarding the same law. In this case, a federal court and jury convicted and sentenced Mont to 7 years in prison and 5 years of supervised release for “conspiring to possess cocaine with the intent to distribute and possessing firearms and ammunition as a felon.” Nearly 4 years into his sentence, two state grand juries charged him with drug crimes, but the federal court refused to deal with the violations of supervised release until Mont’s original term was over. The court then sentenced him to 42 months in federal prison, consecutive with his state prison terms. The question then, is whether the federal court had jurisdiction to impose the reimprisonment term after the initial term ended. 

Mont argued that the court forfeited jurisdiction to impose reimprisonment for supervised release violations when it did not issue a warrant prior to the initial term expiration. The government argued that the court did still have jurisdiction because the statute provides that the term will toll when the person is imprisoned in connection with a conviction.

The justices pressed hard on the difference between “imprisonment” and “official detention”, the former of which is included in the statute and happens on after a person is convicted. Justice Sonia Sotomayor suggested that Congress would not have used “imprisonment” if it really meant something different: “instead of imprisonment, they could have said for any period of detention.” Chief Justice John Roberts suggested it could have used, “any period in which the person is considered to have been imprisoned in connection with a conviction.” The justices suggested their determination will really come down to the interpretation of the statute.