Pulsifer v. United States
The Facts
Mark Pulsifer sought safety valve relief under 18 U.S.C. Section 3553(f), which allows courts to sentence certain drug defendants below mandatory minimum sentences. The safety valve requires, among other things, that the defendant not have more than four criminal history points, not have a prior three-point offense, and not have a prior two-point violent offense. Pulsifer had more than four criminal history points but argued the three-part clause was written in the disjunctive, requiring only that he not satisfy all three disqualifying conditions simultaneously.
The Application
The Court applied ordinary statutory interpretation to Pulsifer's facts: because 'and' connects the three disqualifying conditions in its standard conjunctive sense, each operates as an independent bar to safety valve relief. Pulsifer's possession of more than four criminal history points alone rendered him ineligible under the first criterion, making his theory that he could satisfy some combination of the three conditions simultaneously immaterial to his case. The Court rejected Pulsifer's disjunctive reading outright, holding that the statute's language and structure require a defendant to clear all three conditions simultaneously to access the safety valve, not merely avoid meeting all three at once.
The Conclusion
**The ruling narrows access to the First Step Act's safety valve by requiring defendants with more extensive criminal histories to satisfy all three conditions independently.** Defendants with more than four criminal history points are categorically ineligible regardless of whether they also have prior qualifying offenses.
No circuit court data for this case.
Case Analysis
Overview
The Supreme Court held 6-3 that a defendant is eligible for the First Step Act's safety valve provision only if he satisfies all three conditions in the statute, not merely some of them, interpreting the conjunctive 'and' as requiring satisfaction of each listed criterion. Justice Kagan wrote for the majority.
Facts
Mark Pulsifer sought safety valve relief under 18 U.S.C. Section 3553(f), which allows courts to sentence certain drug defendants below mandatory minimum sentences. The safety valve requires, among other things, that the defendant not have more than four criminal history points, not have a prior three-point offense, and not have a prior two-point violent offense. Pulsifer had more than four criminal history points but argued the three-part clause was written in the disjunctive, requiring only that he not satisfy all three disqualifying conditions simultaneously.
Issue
Whether the First Step Act's safety valve provision requires a defendant to satisfy each of the three listed criminal history conditions, or only to avoid satisfying all three simultaneously.
Rule
The First Step Act's safety valve provision at 18 U.S.C. Section 3553(f)(1) uses the conjunction 'and' to connect three criminal history disqualifiers. Statutory interpretation principles require giving 'and' its ordinary conjunctive meaning unless the context demands otherwise.
Analysis
The Court applied ordinary statutory interpretation to Pulsifer's facts: because 'and' connects the three disqualifying conditions in its standard conjunctive sense, each operates as an independent bar to safety valve relief. Pulsifer's possession of more than four criminal history points alone rendered him ineligible under the first criterion, making his theory that he could satisfy some combination of the three conditions simultaneously immaterial to his case. The Court rejected Pulsifer's disjunctive reading outright, holding that the statute's language and structure require a defendant to clear all three conditions simultaneously to access the safety valve. Not merely avoid meeting all three at once.
Conclusion
**The ruling narrows access to the First Step Act's safety valve by requiring defendants with more extensive criminal histories to satisfy all three conditions independently.** Defendants with more than four criminal history points are categorically ineligible regardless of whether they also have prior qualifying offenses.
Notes
OT2023. Added via SCOTUS bulk import 2026-05-14
Flag an issue
This tracker is maintained by BrynoDC and is free because readers fund it. Support