In the 2010 case of Kevin Abbott v. United States, the Supreme Court ruled on a matter involving federal sentencing guidelines for gun possession in relation to drug trafficking crimes. The petitioner, Kevin Abbott, was convicted of both drug trafficking and possessing a firearm during his criminal activity. Under federal law (18 U.S.C §924(c)), an individual found guilty of carrying a firearm during any "crime of violence or drug trafficking crime" is subject to mandatory minimum sentences which are meant to be served consecutively with penalties for other convictions related to the same set of events. However, Abbott argued that this additional sentence should not apply if another part of their conviction already carries a longer mandatory minimum sentence - in his case, the drug charges. The Supreme Court disagreed with Abbott's interpretation and upheld his consecutive sentences by an unanimous decision (8-0). They concluded that Congress intended these firearms-related punishments as additional penalties regardless if there were harsher sentences associated with other parts from the same conviction.

In the dissenting opinion for Kevin Abbott, Petitioner v. United States, Justice Elena Kagan argued that the majority's interpretation of 18 U.S.C §924(c) was incorrect. She contended that this statute should not be applied to impose additional punishment on a defendant who has already received an enhanced sentence under another provision for using or carrying a firearm during and in relation to any crime of violence or drug trafficking crime. According to her, such application would lead to absurd results where defendants receive longer sentences for lesser crimes simply because they involve firearms. She also criticized the majority’s reliance on legislative history as it contradicts with their textualist approach and fails to provide clear evidence of Congress’ intent.