A small-time crack dealer and a decorated military veteran who lied to a grand jury went before the U.S. Supreme Court this week to test the boundaries of federal judges’ sentencing discretion in a world where the Federal Sentencing Guidelines are no longer mandatory.

With Claiborne v. U.S., No. 06-5618, and Rita v. U.S., No. 06-5754, argued Tuesday, the justices have their first opportunity to tell trial and appellate judges how much weight to give the now-advisory guidelines whose mandatory nature the high court in 2005 found constitutionally invalid in U.S. v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220.

This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.

To view this content, please continue to their sites.

Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now

Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now

Why am I seeing this?

LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law are third party online distributors of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law customers are able to access and use ALM's content, including content from the National Law Journal, The American Lawyer, Legaltech News, The New York Law Journal, and Corporate Counsel, as well as other sources of legal information.

For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at [email protected]