Upcoming Supreme Court Term to Examine Federal Sentencing Guidelines

The Supreme Court will begin its term Oct. 4 by considering the constitutionality of federal sentencing guidelines, hearing oral arguments in two cases that could end up being the most important on the docket, Duke University law professor Neil Siegel says.

"In June 2004, the Court rendered a jaw-dropping decision in Blakely v. Washington," said Siegel, who at the time was clerking for Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg. "Although it was overshadowed by more high-profile cases, Blakely may end up being last year's most momentous decision in terms of concrete human consequences.

"The result is that literally two decades of sentencing reform and tens of thousands of criminal sentences are now in jeopardy," Siegel added. "Justice O'Connor, who does not often exaggerate for rhetorical effect, wrote in dissent that 'the practical consequences of today's decision may be disastrous.'"

In Blakely, the Supreme Court struck down the state of Washington's sentencing guidelines, calling into question such guidelines in other states and at the federal level. The trial judge had followed a common practice of ratcheting up Blakely's sentence from 53 months to 90 months after finding he had acted with "deliberate cruelty," an established reason for handing down a sentence beyond the standard range. The Supreme Court held that this practice violated Blakely's Sixth Amendment right to trial by jury; the jury had not made the finding of deliberate cruelty, nor had Blakely admitted it. 

"The constitutionality of the federal guidelines now divides the federal appeals court," Siegel said.

The Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in two such cases Oct. 4. Siegel will attend the court session.

In addition to his clerkship with Justice Ginsburg, Siegel has served as a Bristow Fellow in the Office of the Solicitor General at the U.S. Department of Justice, and has clerked for former Chief Judge J. Harvie Wilkinson III of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit. His research and teaching focus on the federal courts and constitutional law.

Other cases worth watching, Siegel said, include Ashcroft v. Raich. In that case, the Court will consider whether the federal Controlled Substances Act -- which classifies marijuana as a controlled substance and prohibits its possession or distribution without including a medical-use exception -- exceeds Congress' power.

"In addition to the public's interest in the issue of medical marijuana, this case is so intriguing because -- both within and outside the Court -- the typical ideological positions on federalism sit in tension with the usual ideological views on medical marijuana," Siegel said.

"Conservatives favor limits on Congress' commerce power, but generally approve federal power to regulate drug use. Liberals, by contrast, disagree quite strongly with the Court's recent jurisprudence limiting congressional power, but tend to oppose federal bans on the medical use of marijuana. The Justices will be confronted with these conflicting commitments, and so the public will get to witness where each puts his or her chips."

Note to broadcast editors: Duke provides an on-campus satellite uplink facility for live or pre-recorded television interviews. We are also equipped with ISDN connectivity for radio interviews. Broadcast reporters should contact the Office of Radio-TV Services at (919) 681-8067 to arrange an interview. The Supreme Court will begin its term Oct. 4 by considering the constitutionality of federal sentencing guidelines, hearing oral arguments in two cases that could end up being the most important on the docket, Duke University law professor Neil Siegel says.

"In June 2004, the Court rendered a jaw-dropping decision in Blakely v. Washington," said Siegel, who at the time was clerking for Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg. "Although it was overshadowed by more high-profile cases, Blakely may end up being last year's most momentous decision in terms of concrete human consequences.

"The result is that literally two decades of sentencing reform and tens of thousands of criminal sentences are now in jeopardy," Siegel added. "Justice O'Connor, who does not often exaggerate for rhetorical effect, wrote in dissent that 'the practical consequences of today's decision may be disastrous.'"

In Blakely, the Supreme Court struck down the state of Washington's sentencing guidelines, calling into question such guidelines in other states and at the federal level. The trial judge had followed a common practice of ratcheting up Blakely's sentence from 53 months to 90 months after finding he had acted with "deliberate cruelty," an established reason for handing down a sentence beyond the standard range. The Supreme Court held that this practice violated Blakely's Sixth Amendment right to trial by jury; the jury had not made the finding of deliberate cruelty, nor had Blakely admitted it. 

"The constitutionality of the federal guidelines now divides the federal appeals court," Siegel said.

The Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in two such cases Oct. 4. Siegel will attend the court session.

In addition to his clerkship with Justice Ginsburg, Siegel has served as a Bristow Fellow in the Office of the Solicitor General at the U.S. Department of Justice, and has clerked for former Chief Judge J. Harvie Wilkinson III of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit. His research and teaching focus on the federal courts and constitutional law.

Other cases worth watching, Siegel said, include Ashcroft v. Raich. In that case, the Court will consider whether the federal Controlled Substances Act -- which classifies marijuana as a controlled substance and prohibits its possession or distribution without including a medical-use exception -- exceeds Congress' power.

"In addition to the public's interest in the issue of medical marijuana, this case is so intriguing because -- both within and outside the Court -- the typical ideological positions on federalism sit in tension with the usual ideological views on medical marijuana," Siegel said.

"Conservatives favor limits on Congress' commerce power, but generally approve federal power to regulate drug use. Liberals, by contrast, disagree quite strongly with the Court's recent jurisprudence limiting congressional power, but tend to oppose federal bans on the medical use of marijuana. The Justices will be confronted with these conflicting commitments, and so the public will get to witness where each puts his or her chips."

Note to broadcast editors: Duke provides an on-campus satellite uplink facility for live or pre-recorded television interviews. We are also equipped with ISDN connectivity for radio interviews. Broadcast reporters should contact the Office of Radio-TV Services at (919) 681-8067 to arrange an interview. The Supreme Court will begin its term Oct. 4 by considering the constitutionality of federal sentencing guidelines, hearing oral arguments in two cases that could end up being the most important on the docket, Duke University law professor Neil Siegel says.

"In June 2004, the Court rendered a jaw-dropping decision in Blakely v. Washington," said Siegel, who at the time was clerking for Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg. "Although it was overshadowed by more high-profile cases, Blakely may end up being last year's most momentous decision in terms of concrete human consequences.

"The result is that literally two decades of sentencing reform and tens of thousands of criminal sentences are now in jeopardy," Siegel added. "Justice O'Connor, who does not often exaggerate for rhetorical effect, wrote in dissent that 'the practical consequences of today's decision may be disastrous.'"

In Blakely, the Supreme Court struck down the state of Washington's sentencing guidelines, calling into question such guidelines in other states and at the federal level. The trial judge had followed a common practice of ratcheting up Blakely's sentence from 53 months to 90 months after finding he had acted with "deliberate cruelty," an established reason for handing down a sentence beyond the standard range. The Supreme Court held that this practice violated Blakely's Sixth Amendment right to trial by jury; the jury had not made the finding of deliberate cruelty, nor had Blakely admitted it. 

"The constitutionality of the federal guidelines now divides the federal appeals court," Siegel said.

The Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in two such cases Oct. 4. Siegel will attend the court session.

In addition to his clerkship with Justice Ginsburg, Siegel has served as a Bristow Fellow in the Office of the Solicitor General at the U.S. Department of Justice, and has clerked for former Chief Judge J. Harvie Wilkinson III of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit. His research and teaching focus on the federal courts and constitutional law.

Other cases worth watching, Siegel said, include Ashcroft v. Raich. In that case, the Court will consider whether the federal Controlled Substances Act -- which classifies marijuana as a controlled substance and prohibits its possession or distribution without including a medical-use exception -- exceeds Congress' power.

"In addition to the public's interest in the issue of medical marijuana, this case is so intriguing because -- both within and outside the Court -- the typical ideological positions on federalism sit in tension with the usual ideological views on medical marijuana," Siegel said.

"Conservatives favor limits on Congress' commerce power, but generally approve federal power to regulate drug use. Liberals, by contrast, disagree quite strongly with the Court's recent jurisprudence limiting congressional power, but tend to oppose federal bans on the medical use of marijuana. The Justices will be confronted with these conflicting commitments, and so the public will get to witness where each puts his or her chips."

Note to broadcast editors: Duke provides an on-campus satellite uplink facility for live or pre-recorded television interviews. We are also equipped with ISDN connectivity for radio interviews. Broadcast reporters should contact the Office of Radio-TV Services at (919) 681-8067 to arrange an interview.