This week’s ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court to overturn federal sentencing guidelines drew mixed reactions from local lawyers and law enforcement officials.

A top drug agent deemed the narrow decision as a threat to public safety, while a local defense attorney described it as the correction of a long-standing injustice.

Congress created the guidelines in 1984 to prevent disparities in sentencing for federal crimes.

It set up a grid system for sentencing people according to several factors, such as the amount of drugs involved in a crime, the defendant’s criminal record and whether a firearm was used.

All of these details were plugged into a formula to come up with a sentencing range, and federal judges were bound by that range.

Ever since they were created, the guidelines have been criticized by judges and defense attorneys for giving judges too little discretion. They’ve also been criticized for resulting in sentences too harsh for the circumstances surrounding particular crimes.

“We have long felt that the guidelines are not only an infringement on defendants’ rights, but they also are an infringement on the judiciary,” said George Hess, a defense attorney in Lewiston.

With a 5-4 vote Wednesday, the U.S. Supreme Court sided with Hess and other critics across the country. It deemed the guidelines unconstitutional and ruled that they will no longer be mandatory.

Now, the guidelines are simply advisory. Judges can refer to them but they are not bound by them, making the system similar to the one used in Maine’s state courts.

According to Alan Lobozzo, another defense attorney in Lewiston, that is the best way to assure fairness. Describing the guidelines as draconian and artificial, Lobozzo said, “Every case is unique and every individual is unique.”

Others see it differently.

“The consistency that we’ve enjoyed at the federal level may soon mirror the inconsistency that we’ve seen at the state level,” said Gerry Baril, a supervisor for the Maine Drug Enforcement Agency.

For drug cases, the decision of whether to prosecute at the state or federal level largely depends on the amount of drugs involved.

Baril pointed out that two defendants convicted at the state level for trafficking the same amount of cocaine could serve vastly different sentences depending on the judge.

He believes that some savvy defense attorneys manipulate their cases by asking for continuances in order to get their clients before sympathetic judges. If the same thing begins to happen at the federal level it could jeopardize public safety, he said.

“Different judges sentence drug traffickers differently,” he said. “Some judges just don’t see drug cases to be the threat to public safety that they really are.”

Auburn defense attorney William Maselli responded to Baril’s comments by arguing that there are no sympathetic judges. Additionally, he said, federal cases are assigned to one judge at the beginning of the process and they remain with that judge until the end.

“Federal judges are now in a position to correct the injustice of having to give long sentences,” Maselli said.

Although Congress still has to review the decision to make sure it passes constitutional muster, the ruling took effect immediately. It will apply to any defendant who has not been sentenced and to many of those whose cases are now with the 1st Circuit Court of Appeals.

“We have a number of cases that were on hold, pending this decision,” said Paula Silsby, the U.S. attorney for Maine.

Convicted criminals who have already been sentenced and who have not filed an appeal could petition the court to reconsider their sentences under the new system.

But local defense attorneys acknowledged the difficulty in doing so, especially with those defendants who accepted plea deals, such as former Bates College professor Linda Williams, who is serving five years in prison after pleading guilty to conspiracy to distribute crack cocaine.

Silsby said it is still too early to predict the impact of the ruling.

“I don’t think anybody knows,” she said. “It will depend on the individual sentencing judges and whether they choose to follow the guidelines as they currently exist.”