Harris v. United States

Background

A man who ran a pawnshop sold illegal drugs while carrying an unconcealed semiautomatic pistol. He was charged under federal drug and gun laws that require a five-year minimum prison term for carrying a gun during a crime, but a seven-year minimum if the gun was "brandished." The indictment did not mention brandishing. After a bench trial the judge convicted him, found by a preponderance of the evidence that he had brandished the gun, and imposed the seven-year minimum. The Court of Appeals affirmed, and the Supreme Court reviewed the issue.

Reasoning

The Justices asked whether Congress meant the statute to make brandishing an element of a separate crime (which would require indictment and jury proof) or a sentencing factor for the judge. The Court examined the statute’s text, structure, and history and concluded the subsections that raise minimums read like sentencing rules, not separate crimes. The Court also considered two earlier decisions and held that Apprendi’s rule about facts that increase the statutory maximum does not overturn McMillan’s rule allowing judges to find facts that raise mandatory minimums.

Real world impact

As a result, judges may find facts like brandishing by a lower standard of proof to trigger higher mandatory minimum sentences in federal gun-and-drug cases. The decision affirms long-standing sentencing practices and leaves policy judgments about mandatory minimums to Congress and state legislatures. The ruling preserves the current structure of many federal and state statutes that condition minimum sentences on judicial findings.

Dissents or concurrances

Justice O’Connor joined the opinion; Justice Breyer agreed with the judgment but questioned the Court’s logic; several Justices dissented, arguing McMillan should be overruled and juries should decide such facts.