In the case of Frantz DePierre v. United States, 2010, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled unanimously that a federal law imposing longer prison sentences for offenses involving "cocaine base" applies to all forms of cocaine in its chemically basic form, not just crack cocaine as argued by DePierre. The defendant was convicted under a statute which mandates minimum sentences for crimes involving certain quantities of "cocaine base". He appealed his conviction arguing that this term should be interpreted narrowly to refer only to 'crack' cocaine rather than all forms of cocaine in their chemically basic state (including coca leaves and paste). However, the court disagreed with him stating that Congress intended “cocaine base” to encompass more than just crack when it enacted the statute and affirmed his conviction.

In the dissenting opinion for Frantz DePierre v. United States, Justice Scalia disagreed with the majority's interpretation of "cocaine base" in the federal drug statute to include all forms of cocaine. He argued that this broad interpretation was inconsistent with Congress' intent when it enacted harsher penalties for crack cocaine offenses in 1986. According to Scalia, Congress intended "cocaine base" to refer specifically to crack cocaine, not other forms of the drug like coca leaves or paste. He pointed out that at the time of enactment, there was a widespread public perception that crack was more dangerous than other types of cocaine and thus warranted stricter punishment. Furthermore, he criticized his colleagues for relying on scientific definitions rather than considering how terms were used in everyday language and legal contexts at the time legislation is passed.