Court Weighs ‘Anything Goes’ Sentences
The U.S. Supreme Court considered whether “anything goes” is the standard for federal sentences in oral arguments yesterday.
The court is being asked to consider how much leeway judges have to depart from federal sentencing guidelines given its two-year-old ruling in United States v. Booker that the guidelines are advisory rather than mandatory. The court’s conclusion in that case avoided a finding that the guidelines violated the Sixth Amendment by allowing judges rather than jurors to make conclusions of fact.
Since then, most courts have adopted a proportionality review that holds the more a judge deviates from the guidelines, the stronger the reason must be, Law.com reports.
The issue came into sharp focus after a statement by a lawyer for a crack defendant that “judges must be free to disagree with the guidelines.” The New York Times quoted three justices’ take on that view.
Justice Stephen G. Breyer, one of the original drafters of the guidelines: “You’re saying either we have to make it unconstitutional,” he said, “or you have to say anything goes.”
Justice Antonin Scalia to the rescue: “Your position is not anything goes,” he said. “It’s anything that’s reasonable goes.”
Justice Anthony M. Kennedy: “How do we define ‘reasonable?’ ”
SCOTUSblog has posted briefs and documents in the two consolidated cases, Gall v. United States and Kimbrough v. United States.
