Peugh v. United States
Headline: Applying later, harsher Sentencing Guidelines to defendants’ earlier crimes violates the Constitution, the Court rules, preventing retroactive guideline increases from raising prison terms at sentencing.
Holding: In Peugh, the Court held that sentencing a defendant under a version of the federal Sentencing Guidelines issued after the offense, when that version produces a higher advisory sentencing range, violates the Ex Post Facto Clause.
- Requires courts to use Guidelines effective when the crime occurred if new Guidelines raise ranges.
- May reduce prison terms for people sentenced under later, harsher guideline versions.
- Could lead to resentencing in cases where later Guidelines raised recommended terms.
Summary
Background
A business owner, Marvin Peugh, and his cousin ran two farming-related companies and committed bank fraud and check-kiting in 1999–2000. Peugh was convicted of multiple bank-fraud counts and went to trial. At sentencing in 2010, the court applied the 2009 Sentencing Guidelines, which produced a much higher advisory prison range than the 1998 Guidelines in effect when his crimes occurred, and imposed a 70-month prison term.
Reasoning
The Court addressed whether using Guidelines issued after the crime that produce a higher recommended range violates the Constitution’s ban on ex post facto laws. Relying on earlier cases like Miller, the majority concluded that even advisory Guidelines still function as the lodestone of sentencing after Booker and usually steer judges and appeals courts toward the Guidelines range. That practical effect creates a significant risk of a higher sentence when a later Guideline increases the recommended range. The Court therefore held that applying the later, harsher Guidelines in Peugh’s case violated the Ex Post Facto Clause and reversed.
Real world impact
The ruling requires sentencing courts to use the Guidelines in effect at the time the offense occurred when later amendments would raise the advisory range. Sentences imposed under later, harsher guideline versions may be vulnerable to challenge. The decision resolves a split among appeals courts and sends the case back for further proceedings.
Dissents or concurrances
Several Justices dissented, arguing the Guidelines are advisory and do not have legal force to create an ex post facto problem, so they would have affirmed the lower courts.
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?