Supreme Court Decision Ends Judicial Debate Over Sentencing Guidelines
Feature Story by Civilrights.org staff - 1/19/2005
In a two-part decision on January 12, the U.S. Supreme Court held that the current federal sentencing system violates a defendant's right to trial by jury, while at the same time directing federal judges to "take [federal guidelines] into account" when imposing sentences.Under the ruling, federal judges will have the discretion to decide whether to impose a sentence either harsher or more lenient than the guidelines' ranges, but may be subject to reversal if an appeals court determines the sentence to be "unreasonable."
The Court's decisions in United States v. Booker and United States v. Fanfan close the debate within the courts over the sentencing guidelines, sparked by the Court's decision in June 2004 in Blakely v. Washington. In its 5 to 4 decision in Blakely, the Court held that any facts leading to a sentence beyond that prescribed by the sentencing guideline maximum must either be decided beyond a reasonable doubt by a jury or admitted by the defendant. Otherwise, the Court held, there would be a violation of the defendant's Sixth Amendment right to trial by jury.
In the wake of Blakely, a number of lower federal courts had issued divergent opinions on the application of the decision to the federal sentencing system. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, in Booker, held the federal sentencing guideline system unconstitutional. The Second Circuit, in Fanfan, certified the question to the Supreme Court after the district court, relying on Blakely, concluded that it could not follow the federal guidelines.
On August 2, 2004, the Supreme Court granted expedited review for these two cases to determine the fate of the federal guidelines system. Both cases were heard on October 4, 2004, the first day of the new Court term.
Given the outcome in Blakely, the decision to invalidate the federal sentencing system was widely anticipated by court watchers. But the remedy adopted by the Court had not been proposed by any party.
Only one of the nine Justices - Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg - voted both to hold the current sentencing system unconstitutional and to retain the guidelines in advisory form.
The same grouping that had formed the majority in Blakely - John Paul Stevens, Antonin Scalia, David H. Souter, Clarence Thomas, and Ginsburg - held that current administration of the sentencing guidelines violated the defendant's right to jury trial by giving judges the right to impose sentences based on facts the jury did not find beyond a reasonable doubt.
Another group of five justices - Stephen G. Breyer, Sandra Day O'Connor, Anthony M. Kennedy, and Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist - voted to uphold the guidelines in voluntary form.
While groups like the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights did not take a position on the constitutionality of the federal sentencing guidelines in the wake of Blakely, they have stated that they want to ensure that civil rights concerns remain at the heart of the debate, recommending specifically that any sentencing guideline reforms ensure balance in sentencing; preserve judicial discretion; and redress racial disparities.
