Peugh v. United States
|Docket No.||Op. Below||Argument||Opinion||Vote||Author||Term|
Feb 26, 2013
|Jun 10, 2013||5-4||Sotomayor||OT 2012|
Holding: The Constitution’s Ex Post Facto Clause prohibits federal courts from sentencing a defendant based on guidelines that were promulgated after he committed his crimes, when the new version of guidelines provides a higher sentencing range than the version in place at the time of the offense.
Plain English Summary:
Judgment: Reversed and remanded, 5-4, in an opinion by Justice Sotomayor on June 10, 2013. Justice Ginsburg, Justice Breyer, and Justice Kagan joined the opinion in full and Justice Kennedy joined the opinion except as to Part III-C. Justice Thomas filed a dissenting opinion, in which Chief Justice Roberts, Justice Scalia and Justice Alito as to Parts I and II-C. Justice Alito filed a dissenting opinion in which Justice Scalia joined.
- Opinion analysis: Four differing views leave ex post facto doctrine muddled but the result for the Guidelines is clear (Rory Little)
- Details: Peugh v. United States (Amy Howe)
- Argument recap: The ex post facto boundary remains murky (Rory Little)
- Argument preview: Are federal Sentencing Guideline amendments “law” or merely “advice” when applying the Ex Post Facto Clause? (Rory Little)
- Petition of the day (Ben Cheng)