Sentencing guidelines no longer mandatory

In a ruling that threatens to "turn the entire (federal court) system on its head," the Supreme Court on Wednesday struck down key portions of the nearly 2-decade-old federal sentencing guidelines.

The 5-4 decision invalidates the mandatory nature of the guidelines, a complex sentencing matrix that previously had federal judges relying on facts unproven to a jury to lengthen criminals' sentences.

Allowing judges to make findings on those facts — the amount of controlled substances in a drug case, for instance — violates defendants' Sixth Amendment right to a jury trial, the Supreme Court said.

The decision was hailed by many as an important step in reforming the federal sentencing system, and it validated a Utah federal judge's criticism of the system.

"I hope that our political leaders and the icons of federal sentencing, including our own (Sen.) Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, and others, will now investigate fully, fairly and appropriately what the future of federal criminal justice should be," said University of Utah law professor Erik Luna, an outspoken critic of the federal sentencing system.

Hatch, who played a vital role in the passage of the Sentencing Reform Act of 1984, which created the guideline system, released a statement Wednesday saying he was disappointed but not surprised, by the court's decision.

"As the court recognized, the ball is now in Congress' court," Hatch said. "We will need to examine our options carefully."

Though much remains unclear from Wednesday's decision, Frank Bowman, a former federal prosecutor and current law professor at Indiana University, said the immediate result appears to be an advisory system that "gives federal trial judges the greatest sentencing power they've had in the history of the republic."

Largely, federal judges across the country have been critical of the 17-year-old system, saying it removes all discretion from sentencing decisions. In that respect, Bowman said, many jurists will likely welcome Wednesday's decision.

"I suspect many of them might have preferred this outcome, but I rather suspect that the federal judiciary may come to regret what's happened here," he said, saying the decision is "the one outcome that is most likely to provoke a response from the Congress and Department of Justice that the judges may find unpleasant."