Supreme Court Grants Cert To Review Federal Sentencing Practice
In what could lead to the most important development in federal sentencing
since Booker, the Supreme Court has granted certiorari in two federal sentencing
appeals: Rita v. United States, No. 06-5754 (decision below may be found
here) and Claiborne v. United States, No. 06-5618 (decision below may be
found here). Combined, the cases present issues which would allow the Court
to decide the limits of district court sentencing discretion, whether the
Guidelines should be accorded a presumption of reasonableness, and the contours
of reasonableness review on appeal (the Questions Presented in Rita may be
found here; the Questions Presented in Claiborne may be found here). Oral
arguments will be heard February 20, 2007.
The briefs filed by the petitioners, and by most amici curiae in support,
are available here. The briefs filed by respondents, and amici curiae in
support, are available here. In addition, a description of the amicus brief
filed by Senators Kennedy, Hatch and Feinstein on behalf of the government,
is available here. This description, by National Sentencing Resource Counsel
Amy Baron-Evans, may be useful to practitioners who are litigating crack
cocaine cases.
Practitioners should keep a close eye on these cases, and preserve any perceived Booker error that the cases may address. For an article on effective post-Booker sentencing practice, see The Continuing Struggle for Just, Effective and Constitutional Sentencing After United States v. Booker (August 2006), by Amy Baron-Evans, National Federal Defender Sentencing Resource Counsel. Practitioners should also be aware that the Supreme Court has recently issued a decision in Cunningham v. California, which ruled that California's sentencing law is unconstitutional because it allows judges to find facts that lead to higher sentences. It remains to be seen what impact this will have on the Rita and Claiborne cases. For text of the Cunningham opinion, click here.