Supreme Court revisits how much leeway judges can have in sentencing
Two years ago, the US Supreme Court struck down the federal sentencing guidelines system because it forced judges in some cases to increase a criminal's punishment based on information that had never been proved to a jury.Skip to next paragraph
Subscribe Today to the Monitor
The Constitution says that every defendant has a right to a jury trial, and the high court ruled that such a mandatory sentencing system violates that right.
Instead of invalidating the entire guidelines system and leaving it to Congress to fix the problem, five justices agreed to craft a remedy to retain most of the guidelines. But the result has confused many judges across the country and caused federal appeals courts to rule in conflicting ways.
Tuesday, the high court is set to hear oral argument in two cases that analysts say may help clear up some of the confusion. The decision will be closely watched.
"We are talking about the rules that govern every federal case – 80,000 cases a year," says Marc Miller, a law professor and sentencing scholar at the University of Arizona College of Law.
In its 2005 decision, the Supreme Court ruled that the sentencing guidelines were no longer mandatory, only advisory. "The district courts, while not bound to apply the guidelines, must consult those guidelines and take them into account when sentencing," Justice Stephen Breyer, declared in a second part of that decision.
Justice Breyer didn't stop there. He and his four colleagues empowered the appeals courts to police this new sentencing system by examining whether sentencing judges were being unreasonable in the way they determined punishment.
In a dissent, Justice Antonin Scalia warned that Breyer's remedial action would "wreak havoc" in federal district and appeals courts. Although it is unclear exactly how much havoc has been wreaked, there is no doubt that many courts are struggling to interpret the decision.
At issue is how much weight judges should give to the guidelines now that they are only advisory?
On one side are those who argue that sentencing judges should be free to adopt or reject the guidelines on an equal footing with several other factors Congress has identified as important sentencing objectives. The key, they say, is that judges rely on reasoned judgment rather than a mechanical guidelines formula to mete out punishments.
On the other side are those who say the guidelines must be afforded an exalted status among sentencing factors since they represent the collective wisdom of the US Sentencing Commission created by Congress.
Five of the nation's 12 appeals courts have embraced the former approach, while seven have embraced the latter approach.
Specifically, the question is whether appeals court judges should award a presumption of reasonableness to any sentence imposed within the range of the guidelines.
Such an approach promotes clarity, stability, and uniformity in the sentencing nationwide, supporters say.
Critics say it erodes the advisory nature of the guidelines and judicial flexibility at sentencing, potentially raising the same constitutional objection that led to mandatory guidelines being struck down in 2005.