Supreme Court ruling in Rita:
Presumption of reasonableness does not bind sentencing judges' discretion
6/21/07
WASHINGTON, D.C.: Families Against Mandatory Minimums (FAMM) greets today’s U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Rita v. United States with cautious optimism. While the decision permits appellate courts to apply a presumption of reasonableness when reviewing within-guideline sentences, sentencing judges are not bound by the presumption and will be able to exercise judicial discretion under the advisory sentencing guidelines. The vote was 8-1, with only Justice David H. Souter dissenting.
Mary Price, vice president and general counsel of FAMM said, "There is much in the opinion that will give heart to our members. Rita is saying ‘hands-off’ to appeals courts whose opinions threatened to reinstate mandatory sentencing. This case came before the Court after many U.S. Courts of Appeals failed to abide by the lessons of United States v. Booker. Booker transformed mandatory federal sentencing guidelines into advisory guidelines. Instead, many appeals courts enforced a presumption of guideline reasonableness on lower courts.
"The presumption of reasonableness imposed by many courts of appeals assumed that a sentence within the guidelines was the “reasonable” sentence and that a sentence outside the guidelines was not. This presumption was in turn imposed on sentencing judges, who frequently saw their below-guideline sentences overturned on appeal because they violated the presumption of reasonableness," said Price. “In this way, sentencing courts were actively discouraged from individualizing sentencing.”
In Rita, the Court affirmed that judges may apply the guideline sentence if it is appropriate, based on the individual factors in the case, but are not required to impose the guideline sentence based on an appellate court's presumption of guideline reasonableness. Instead, the Court ruled, sentencing judges must follow the law of sentencing. That law directs sentencing judges to impose sentences that are sufficient to serve the interests of society, but never greater than necessary to punish its wrongdoers. Sometimes the guideline sentence will satisfy that mandate; often it does not.
Said Price, "FAMM's files are filled with stories of defendants sentenced to unjustly long guideline sentences by judges who felt compelled to abide by the guidelines, but who also stated on the record that the guideline sentence they were forced to impose was unjust in light of the facts and circumstances of the case. The Rita opinion means that sentencing judges like them are not bound by any presumption that the guideline sentence is reasonable or mandatory."
Much remains to be seen as the lower courts sentence and the appeals courts review them, and FAMM awaits the Court’s decision in the next case to address the issue, Gall v. United States. There the court will determine how the presumption of reasonableness affects sentences that fall below the guideline sentence. FAMM will participate in the Gall case with an amicus brief this summer.
"While the Court reserved until next year the issue of how below-guideline sentences are to be handled, today’s decision should give sentencing courts the ability to reject a guideline sentence when it is not appropriate in a given case without fear that the sentence will be reversed by an appeals court applying a mechanical presumption of reasonableness," said Price.
FAMM promotes sentencing policies that give judges discretion to distinguish among defendants and to sentence them according to their role in the offense, the seriousness of the offense, the potential for rehabilitation and the characteristics of the defendants. FAMM believes that the punishment must always fit the crime and envisions a world where sentencing is individualized, humane and sufficient but not greater than necessary to impose just punishment, secure public safety and support rehabilitation and reentry. For more information, visit: http://www.famm.org/ or email media@famm.org.
Get more information
Click here to download the Rita opinions from SCOTUSblog.
Download FAMM's amicus brief in the cases, Gregory Poe of Robbins, Russell, Englert, Orseck and Untereiner, Brian Willen of Mayer, Brown, Rowe and Maw and Peter Goldberger.
Read case profiles of people serving mandatory sentences in federal prison.
Visit www.fd.org to read all briefs filed in Rita and Claiborne.