What counts as crack cocaine
DePierre v. United States
In brief
The Supreme Court agreed with the First Circuit: federal law’s “cocaine base” term includes chemically basic cocaine beyond crack.
- Where it stands
- Decided
Decided 9-0 · June 9, 2011 · Opinion by Justice Scalia
- What it’s about
- Frantz DePierre argued that “cocaine base” in the federal drug-sentencing law meant only crack cocaine, not every chemically basic form of cocaine.
- Who it affects
- The decision means the federal sentencing law’s “cocaine base” category covers cocaine in its chemically basic form, not just crack cocaine.
Summary: written with AI from the case record.
What it's about
The Supreme Court ruled that it includes cocaine in its chemically basic form and agreed with the First Circuit’s decision upholding his sentence (affirmed).
Federal sentencing law uses the phrase “cocaine base,” and DePierre’s appeal turned on whether it meant crack alone or a broader chemical category.
Question presented
Does the term "cocaine base" encompass every form of cocaine that is classified chemically as a base, or is the term "cocaine base" limited to "crack" cocaine?
What the Court decided
Holding
“[C]ocaine base,” as used in §841(b)(1), means not just “crack cocaine,” but cocaine in its chemically basic form. 599 F. 3d 25, affirmed.
- Result
- Affirmed
The vote
What's next
The First Circuit’s ruling upholding DePierre’s sentence remains in place, and the Supreme Court’s review of this case is complete.
Documents
Opinions
Audio
Docket activity
New analysis added
AI analysis generated: Case Briefing
New analysis added
AI analysis generated: Impact Analysis
AI analysis generated: Opinion Summary
Show 5 moreShow fewer
AI analysis generated: Decision Record
Case data updated: summary, question_presented, generation_metadata
Case data updated: question_presented, extraction_metadata
Audio Recording added: Oral Arguments - DePierre
Opinion added: DePierre
More questions
- What did Justice Scalia object to?
- He agreed with the result but said the Court’s discussion of the law’s history was unnecessary and contradicted DePierre’s account.
Sources
Primary materials plus reporting. Best-effort analysis: this explainer relies on a mix of primary materials and trusted secondary sources. Official filings and opinions remain authoritative.