Update on the 2007 term of the U.S. Supreme Court
There have been seven decisions so far in the 2007 term:
December 10:
In Kimbrough v. United States , the U.S. Supreme Court reiterated that the sentencing guidelines are advisory only, and struck down the 4th Circuit’s rule that a sentence outside the guidelines is per se unreasonable when based upon disagreement with the distinctions between powder and crack cocaine. The Court expressly allows a district court to consider the disparity in treatment in the guidelines between crack and powder cocaine offenses. Thomas and Alito filed dissenting opinions.
In Watson v. United States, the U.S. Supreme Court held that a defendant does not “use” a firearm in connection with a drug offense, as the term is used in the sentencing guidelines 18 U.S.C. 924, merely by receiving a gun for payment in a drug transactions. The full court agreed on the outcome here; although Ginsburg filed a concurring opinion.
In Gall v. United States , the U.S. Supreme Court restored some of the traditional discretion long enjoyed by sentencing judges, holding that appellate courts must employ the “abuse of discretion standard” in reviewing sentences. A district court must consider and justify its departure from the advisory sentence guidelines. An appellate court may not require extraordinary circumstances as such justification, and may no employ a rigid mathematical formula to determine whether how much justification is required. In Gall, the defendant, who had participated in an ecstasy distribution scheme while in college, received probation, rather than a prison sentence, which the district court properly justified by the defendant’s withdrawal from the offense, cooperation with authorities, and subsequent law abiding conduct. Thomas and Alito filed dissenting opinions.
Since the 9th circuit has traditionally allowed deference to the sentencing court, this decision will have less impact in this circuit than in circuits such as the 7th or 8th, where appellate review has been intolerant of deviation from the guidelines.
December 4:
In Logan v. United States, the U.S. Supreme Court held that the sentence enhancement provided for felons convicted of possession of firearms. 18 U.S.C. §924, applied to Logan, even though the enhancement exempts convictions where civil rights have been restored. Logan, convicted of domestic violence misdemeanors punishable by up to three years imprisonment in Wisconsin, which state did not revoke civil rights for such convictions, had argued that civil rights retained were equivalent to civil rights restored.
In CSX Transp., Inc. v. Georgia State Bd. of Equalization, the U.S. Supreme Court held that the 4-R Act allows a railroad to challenge the methodology of a state’s valuation of its property for taxation purposes.
November 5:
In Allen v. Siebert, the U.S. Supreme Court rejected the theory that the time period for filing a petition for habeas is tolled where a time limit operates as an affirmative defense, rather than a jurisdictional bar. The Court held that time limits are filing conditions, regardless of their form. An untimely filed petition is not properly filed.
October 10:
In Board of Ed. of City School Dist. of New York v. Tom F., the judgment of the U.S. District Court of Appeals, 2d Circuit, was affirmed without opinion or precedential value due to a tie vote. The 2d circuit had ruled that parents of a disabled child were entitled to reimbursement of private school tuition even though the child has not previously received any public special education services.
