Beckles v. United States

Beckles v. United States
Argued November 28, 2016
Decided March 6, 2017
Full case name Travis Beckles, Petitioner v. United States
Docket nos. 15–8544
Citations 580 U.S. ___ (more)
137 S. Ct. 886; 197 L. Ed. 2d 145
Prior history United States v. Beckles, 565 F.3d 832, 846 (11th Cir. 2009), cert denied, 558 U.S. 906 (2009); cert granted and subsequent opinion of the court of appeals vacated, Beckles v. United States, 576 U.S. ___ (2015); Beckles v. United States, 616 Fed. Appx. 415, 416 (2015) (per curiam).
Procedural history On writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
Holding
The Federal Sentencing Guidelines, including § 4B1.2(a)'s residual clause, are not subject to vagueness challenges under the Due Process Clause.
Court membership
Chief Justice
John Roberts
Associate Justices
Anthony Kennedy · Clarence Thomas
Ruth Bader Ginsburg · Stephen Breyer
Samuel Alito · Sonia Sotomayor
Elena Kagan
Case opinions
Majority Thomas, joined by Roberts, Kennedy, Breyer, Alito
Concurrence Kennedy
Concurrence Ginsburg (concurring in judgment)
Concurrence Sotomayor (concurring in judgment)
Kagan took no part in the consideration or decision of the case.
Laws applied
U.S. Const. amend. V

Beckles v. United States, 580 U.S. ___ (2017), was a case in which the United States Supreme Court evaluated whether the residual clause in the United States Advisory Sentencing Guidelines[1] was unconstitutionally vague.[2][3]

On November 28, 2016, oral arguments were heard, where a private attorney appeared for the accused, Deputy U.S. Solicitor General Michael Dreeben appeared for the government, and a professor appeared as a court appointed amicus curiae to defend the lower court's opinion.[4][5]

On March 6, 2017, the Supreme Court delivered judgment in favor of the government, voting unanimously to affirm the lower court.[6] In an opinion written by Justice Clarence Thomas, the Court held that "the advisory Guidelines are not subject to vagueness challenges under the Due Process Clause" of the Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution.[7]

Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote a brief concurrence.[6]

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg concurred only in the judgment, stressing that the commentary to the Guidelines specifically mentioned Beckles' offense.[6]

Justice Sonia Sotomayor also concurred only in the judgment, agreeing with Ginsburg that the commentary to the Guidelines applied to Beckles, but going on to opine that the Guidelines as a whole may still be unconstitutionally vague.[6]

See also

References

  1. ↑ United States Sentencing Commission, Guidelines Manual §4B1.2(a)(2) (Nov. 2006) (USSG).
  2. ↑ Beckles v. United States, No. 15–8544 580 U.S. ___ (2017), slip. op. at 1, 3.
  3. ↑ Leah M. Litman & Luke C. Beasley, How the Sentencing Commission Does and Does Not Matter in Beckles v. United States, 165 U. PA. L. REV. ONLINE 33 (2016).
  4. ↑ "Beckles v. United States". Oyez Project. Retrieved 6 December 2017.
  5. ↑ Johnson, Alisa (28 November 2016). "Justices Renew Scrutiny of 'Crime of Violence' Catchall Definition". Bloomberg BNA. Retrieved 6 December 2017.
  6. 1 2 3 4 The Supreme Court, 2016 Term — Leading Cases, 131 HARV. L. REV. 293 (2017).
  7. ↑ Beckles, slip op. at 1.
This article is issued from Wikipedia. The text is licensed under Creative Commons - Attribution - Sharealike. Additional terms may apply for the media files.