The Act's silence on how to apply its new rules, before the effective date or not, caused a split among the Justices on how to interpret its new lenient provisions.

[9] Justice Stephen Breyer wrote the majority opinion for the Court, reversing the Seventh Circuit, holding that Dorsey should have been sentenced under the new 2010 guidelines.

[10] "[N]ot to apply the Fair Sentencing Act," Breyer wrote, "would do more than preserve a disproportionate status quo; it would make matters worse.

"[12] Breyer concluded by arguing that "We have no reason to believe Congress would have wanted to impose an unforeseeable, potentially complex application date.

[5] "The canon of constitutional avoidance [has] no application here," Scalia argued, "[for] although many observers viewed the 100-to-1 crack-to-powder ratio under the prior law as having a racially disparate impact, only intentional discrimination may violate the equal protection component of the Fifth Amendment's Due Process Clause.