The story notes that the Third Circuit recently held that district judges have the freedom after the Booker decision to adjust crack sentences to account for the disparity. That's good news, but the story omits the bad news: other courts, including (perhaps most prominently) the Seventh Circuit, have told district judges that Congress wants sentencing disparities, and that judges should defer to that legislative directive. We can only hope the Supreme Court will soon resolve the conflict by holding that Booker means what it says: judges now have the power to sentence fairly, even if the federal sentencing guidelines would suggest an unfair sentence.

Still, setting aside the sentencing guidelines issue, the Supreme Court has shown little interest in disturbing mandatory minimum sentencing laws. Will legislators ever stop pandering to the Justice Department (and to voters who approve of laws that disproportionately harm black defendants (pdf)) and reverse the ill-conceived law that was enacted two decades ago?