Rimlawi v. United States
Headline: Court refuses to review appeals court ruling that lets judges order criminal restitution based on judges’ own factual findings, leaving that practice in place and prompting a Justice’s strong dissent.
Holding: The Court denied the petitions for writs of certiorari, leaving the appeals court’s ruling that judges may order restitution based on their own factual findings intact while declining to resolve the jury-right issue.
- Leaves Fifth Circuit rule allowing judges to base restitution on their own findings intact.
- Creates uncertainty about defendants’ jury rights to contest restitution facts.
- Keeps the constitutional question open for future review by other courts.
Summary
Background
Three petitions asked the Supreme Court to review an appeals court decision about criminal restitution. The appeals court held a judge may order restitution based on the judge’s own factual findings without using a jury. The Supreme Court denied the petitions, so the appeals court’s ruling remains in effect for now in that court’s area.
Reasoning
The central question is whether the Sixth Amendment’s right to a jury trial requires a jury to find facts that increase a defendant’s exposure to a money order. Justice Gorsuch dissented from the denial. He explained that this Court’s prior decisions say only a jury may find facts that increase criminal penalties, and he questioned whether judges alone may increase a defendant’s monetary exposure through restitution. He would have granted review to decide the constitutional question.
Real world impact
Because the Court declined to take the cases, the appeals court’s rule allowing judge-found restitution facts stays in place in that circuit. Criminal defendants in that area may continue to face restitution orders based on a judge’s findings until the issue is finally resolved. The denial is not a final decision on the constitutional question and could be revisited in later cases.
Dissents or concurrances
Justice Gorsuch’s dissent says historical practice supports jury findings for restitution and cites past decisions to argue for review. He urged lower courts to keep considering the Sixth Amendment’s application to restitution orders.
Ask about this case
Ask questions about the entire case, including all opinions (majority, concurrences, dissents).
What was the Court's main decision and reasoning?
How did the dissenting opinions differ from the majority?
What are the practical implications of this ruling?