United States v. Booker

Background

A defendant convicted of possessing crack was sentenced much more harshly after a judge found additional drug quantity and obstruction at a sentencing hearing. Another defendant was convicted with the jury finding a larger drug amount, and the judge imposed a sentence based on the jury's verdict. Lower courts rejected the Government's guideline-based sentences after our Blakely decision because the judges had made additional factual findings by a lower standard of proof.

Reasoning

The Court concluded that the Sixth Amendment jury-trial rule identified in Apprendi and Blakely applies to the Federal Sentencing Guidelines. One opinion held that judges may not increase a sentence based on facts the jury did not find or the defendant did not admit. A separate opinion addressed the remedy and explained that two statutory provisions that made the Guidelines mandatory must be invalidated so the Guidelines operate as advisory guidance instead of binding rules.

Real world impact

The Court affirmed that judges cannot rely on judge-found facts to raise a defendant's sentence beyond what the jury's verdict alone authorizes. The Court ordered remands: the first defendant's sentence was vacated for resentencing under the new rules; the second defendant's sentence, based on the jury verdict, did not violate the Sixth Amendment but was remanded for proceedings consistent with the opinions. The holdings apply to cases on direct review, and courts may use ordinary prudential doctrines and harmless-error review.

Dissents or concurrances

Several Justices agreed with parts of the decision but disagreed about the proper remedy. Some opinions urged preserving the Guidelines as written or treating the remedy differently; those disagreements are part of the Court's divided opinions.