Mistretta v. United States

Background

A man indicted in Missouri for a cocaine sale pleaded guilty and was sentenced under a new federal system to 18 months in prison. Congress in 1984 created an independent Sentencing Commission and a mandatory set of Sentencing Guidelines to reduce wide variations in federal punishments and to replace parole with determinate sentences.

Reasoning

The Court considered two main challenges: that Congress had given away too much lawmaking power and that placing the Commission in the Judicial Branch and including judges on it violated separation of powers. The majority found Congress had provided detailed goals and factors for the Commission to follow. The Court held the Commission’s rulemaking fits within the kinds of rulemaking and administrative work that can attend the Judiciary, and that appointment and limited removal by the President did not undermine judicial independence.

Real world impact

The ruling lets the mandatory Guidelines stand, so federal sentencing will be more uniform and judge discretion will generally be constrained by the Commission’s ranges. Judges still may depart from a guideline when they state specific reasons. Congress and the President retain checks: Congress can amend the Guidelines and the President appoints members subject to removal for cause.

Dissents or concurrances

Justice Scalia dissented, arguing the Commission’s lawmaking power is effectively legislative power exercised outside Congress and that creating such a body is incompatible with the Constitution’s structure.