October Term 2000 · Docket 99-1884
Can federal courts review state sentences for constitutional errors?
The dispute centers on whether federal habeas corpus allows review of state sentencing errors.
Verified source milestones
- — An official oral-argument transcript was verified.
The arguments, in order
This case may have been argued more than once. Each entry below uses that session's official transcript. Later arguments do not erase earlier ones.
Argument 1 ·
What happened at the argument
the sides that brought the case assert the Third Circuit failed to apply the Custis rationale correctly.
the opposing sides claim a constitutional interest in reliable sentencing requires federal oversight.
the opposing sides argue federal habeas corpus protects that specific constitutional interest.
Read the official transcript for this argument · Official argument details
Sources used for this argument breakdown
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 19, lines 17-47 — Transcript, file page 19, lines 17-47
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 28, lines 19-43 — Transcript, file page 28, lines 19-43
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 17-58 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 17-58
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 5-15 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 5-15
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 41, lines 1-3 — Transcript, file page 41, lines 1-3
A citizen's guide to the whole case
What this case is about
This case tests the scope of federal habeas corpus power over state sentencing.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 19, lines 17-47 — Transcript, file page 19, lines 17-47
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 28, lines 19-43 — Transcript, file page 28, lines 19-43
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 17-58 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 17-58
How the case got here
The Supreme Court heard oral argument in this case on February 20, 2001.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 5-15 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 5-15
What each side wants
the sides that brought the case want the Court to affirm the Third Circuit's refusal to review the sentence.
the opposing sides want the Court to allow federal habeas review of the state sentence.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 19, lines 17-47 — Transcript, file page 19, lines 17-47
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 28, lines 19-43 — Transcript, file page 28, lines 19-43
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 17-58 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 17-58
What each side says
the sides that brought the case argue the Third Circuit correctly applied the Custis precedent to bar review.
the opposing sides argue federal habeas review is necessary to protect constitutional sentencing interests.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 19, lines 17-47 — Transcript, file page 19, lines 17-47
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 28, lines 19-43 — Transcript, file page 28, lines 19-43
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 17-58 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 17-58
What the justices asked
Chief Justice Rehnquist asked if the case was submitted after the argument concluded.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 41, lines 1-3 — Transcript, file page 41, lines 1-3
Why it matters
This dispute defines the boundary between state and federal judicial authority over criminal sentences.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 19, lines 17-47 — Transcript, file page 19, lines 17-47
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 28, lines 19-43 — Transcript, file page 28, lines 19-43
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 17-58 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 17-58
What happens next
This article currently covers the argument record. Use the official docket link for later case activity.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 5-15 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 5-15
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 41, lines 1-3 — Transcript, file page 41, lines 1-3
Official Court provenance
Official docket and case history · Official Supreme Court oral-argument detail page
Title and summary sources
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 19, lines 17-47 — Transcript, file page 19, lines 17-47
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 28, lines 19-43 — Transcript, file page 28, lines 19-43
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 17-58 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 17-58
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 19, lines 17-47 — Transcript, file page 19, lines 17-47
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 28, lines 19-43 — Transcript, file page 28, lines 19-43
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 17-58 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 17-58
Revision history
- Revision 1 · Official Transcript ·
Correction: Rewritten to the concise citizen-facing editorial standard.
- Revision 2 · Official Transcript ·
Correction: Migrated to the dated official Court activity contract without model use.