Back from the Brink: The Supreme Court Balks at Extending Apprendi to Upset Most Sentencing

Abstract

The Rehnquist Court, not known for favoring criminal defendants, gave them several victories at the end of last yearOs Supreme Court term. The Court forbade executions of the mentally retarded, and it forbade judicial capital sentencing in the absence of jury Þndings of aggravating factors. The latter ruling, in Ring v. Arizona,2 extended a two-year-old landmark case, Apprendi v. New Jersey. Some commentators read Apprendi and Ring as a growing pro-defendant trend, especially since Apprendi seemed to threaten mandatory minimum sentences and even the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines. In truth, while Ring extended Apprendi modestly, two other decisions from this past term limited it greatly. The upshot is that Apprendi, which once threatened the sentencing guidelines and the national trend toward determinate sentencing, is now a caged tiger. And the irony is that Justice Antonin Scalia, the only Justice who voted to strike down the Sentencing Guidelines fourteen years ago, provided the Þfth vote that ensures that the Guidelines will survive today.