They circumscribe judicial sentencing discretion, although they impose few limitations upon prosecutorial discretion, or upon the President's power to pardon. The most widely recognized are those that demand that offenders be sentenced to imprisonment for "not less than" a designated term of imprisonment. The piggyback statutes are not themselves mandatory minimums but sentence offenders by reference to underlying statutes including those that impose mandatory minimums. Constitutional Boundaries

Defendants sentenced to mandatory minimum terms of imprisonment have challenged them on a number of constitutional grounds beginning with Congress's legislative authority and ranging from cruel and unusual punishment through ex post facto and double jeopardy to equal protection and due process. Although the case law is somewhat uncertain, it seems to condemn punishment that is "grossly disproportionate" to the misconduct for which it is imposed, a standard which a sentence imposed under a mandatory minimum statute may breach under extreme circumstances. Individualized consideration . Some eliminated discretion; others provided guidance. Disqualification requires the threat of violence or possession of a firearm "in connection with the offense." Predicate Offenses

The drug trafficking predicates include any felony violation of the Controlled Substances Act, the Controlled Substances Import and Export Act, or the Maritime Drug Law Enforcement Act. Defendants at one time argued that the mandatory minimums of section 924(c) become inapplicable, if they are subject to a higher mandatory minimum under the predicate drug trafficking offense under the Armed Career Criminal Act (18 U.S.C. The Supreme Court rejected the argument in Abbott . Chapter 110 outlaws child pornography. Other changes have occurred over the years, but that essential distinction remains. As in the case of other mandatory minimum sentencing statutes, a court may sentence a defendant convicted of aggravated identity theft to a term of less than two years pursuant to subsection 3553(e). The prosecution must seek the exception, which is only available on the basis of the defendant's substantial assistance in the investigation or prosecution of a federal crime. Three Strikes (18 U.S.C. Here too, their arguments have been largely unavailing. 36 American Criminal Law Review 1279 (1999)
Stephen, History of the Criminal Law of England (1883)
Stewart, Sentencing in the States: The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly , 39 Osgoode Hall Law Journal 413 (2001)
Stith & Cabranes, Fear of Judging: Sentencing Guidelines in the Federal Courts (1998)
__, Judging Under the Federal Sentencing Guidelines , 91 Northwestern University Law Review 1247 (1997)
Tappan, Sentencing Under the Model Penal Code , 23 Law and Contemporary Problems 528 (1958)
Tonry, Sentencing Matters (1996)
Turnbladh, A Critique of the Model Penal Code Sentencing Proposals , 23 Law and Contemporary Problems 544 (1958)
United States General Accounting Office, Federal Drug Offenses: Departures from Sentencing Guidelines and Mandatory Minimum Sentences, Fiscal Years 1999-2001 , GAO-04-105 (Oct. 2003)[GAO is now known as the United States Government Accountability Office]
United States Sentencing Commission, Guidelines Manual (2012)
__, Report to the Congress: Mandatory Minimum Penalties in the Federal Criminal Justice System (2011)
__, Special Report to the Congress: Cocaine and Federal Sentencing Policy (1997)
__, Special Report to the Congress: Downward Departures from the Federal Sentencing Guidelines (2003)
__, Special Report to the Congress: Mandatory Minimum Penalties in the Federal Criminal Justice System (1991)
Villa, Retooling Mandatory Minimum Sentencing: Fixing the Federal "Statutory Safety Valve" to Act as an Effective Mechanism for Clemency in Appropriate Cases , 21 Hamline Law Review 109 (1997)
Weinstein, Fifteen Years After the Federal Sentencing Revolution: How Mandatory Minimums Have Undermined Effective and Just Narcotics Sentencing , 40 American Criminal Law Review 87 (2003)
Wheeler, Toward a Theory of Limiting Punishment: An Examination of the Eighth Amendment , 24 Stanford Law Review 838 (1972)
Whiteside, The Reality of Federal Sentencing: Beyond the Criticism , 91 Northwestern University Law Review 1574 (1997)
Wilkins, Newton & Steer, Competing Sentencing Policies in a "War on Drugs" Era , 28 Wake Forest Law Review 305 (1993)
Zalman, The Rise and Fall of the Indeterminate Sentence , 24 Wayne Law Review 45 (1977)

		Notes and Comments

Do Judicial "Scarlet Letters" Violate the Cruel and Unusual Punishments Clause of the Eighth Amendment , 16 Hastings Constitutional Law Quarterly 115 (1988)
The Eighth Amendment, Becarria, and the Enlightenment: An Historical Justification for the Weems v. United States Excessive Punishment Doctrine , 24 Buffalo Law Review 783 (1975)
Interpretation of the Eighth Amendment—Rummel, Solem and the Venerable Case of Weems v. United States , 1984 Duke Law Journal 789
Mandatory Minimum Sentences: Exemplifying the Law of Unintended Consequences , 28 Florida State University Law Review 935 (2001)
Rethinking Mandatory Minimums After Apprendi , 96 Northwestern University Law Review 811 (2002)
The "Safety Valve" Provision: Should the Government Get an Automatic Shut-Off Valve?
Federal mandatory minimum sentencing statutes limit the discretion of a sentencing court to impose a sentence that does not include a term of imprisonment or the death penalty. They have a long history and come in several varieties: the not-less-than, the flat sentence, and piggyback versions. Federal courts may refrain from imposing an otherwise required statutory mandatory minimum sentence when requested by the prosecution on the basis of substantial assistance toward the prosecution of others. First-time, low-level, non-violent offenders may be able to avoid the mandatory minimums under the Controlled Substances Acts, if they are completely forthcoming.
The most common imposed federal mandatory minimum sentences arise under the Controlled Substance and Controlled Substance Import and Export Acts, the provisions punishing the presence of a firearm in connection with a crime of violence or drug trafficking offense, the Armed Career Criminal Act, various sex crimes including child pornography, and aggravated identity theft.
Critics argue that mandatory minimums undermine the rationale and operation of the federal sentencing guidelines which are designed to eliminate unwarranted sentencing disparity. Counter arguments suggest that the guidelines themselves operate to undermine individual sentencing discretion and that the ills attributed to other mandatory minimums are more appropriately assigned to prosecutorial discretion or other sources.
State and federal mandatory minimums have come under constitutional attack on several grounds over the years, and have generally survived. The Eighth Amendment's cruel and unusual punishments clause does bar mandatory capital punishment, and apparently bans any term of imprisonment that is grossly disproportionate to the seriousness of the crime for which it is imposed. The Supreme Court, however, has declined to overturn sentences imposed under the California three strikes law and challenged as cruel and unusual. Double jeopardy, ex post facto, due process, separation of powers, and equal protection challenges have been generally unavailing.
The United States Sentencing Commission's Mandatory Minimum Penalties in the Federal Criminal Justice System (2011) recommends consideration of amendments to several of the statutes under which federal mandatory minimum sentences are most often imposed.
Lists of the various federal mandatory minimum sentencing statutes are appended, as is a bibliography of legal materials. This report is available in an abridged version as CRS Report RS21598, Federal Mandatory Minimum Sentencing Statutes: An Abbreviated Overview, without the citations to authority, footnotes, or appendixes that appear here.