October Term 2000 · Docket 99-9073
Should federal courts review sentencing decisions with fresh eyes or defer to trial judges?
The dispute centers on whether appellate courts must re-evaluate sentencing facts or accept the trial judge's findings.
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
Dean Strang argued for de novo review to ensure uniformity in federal sentencing.
Wolfson argued the court of appeals properly applied a deferential standard.
chief_justice_rehnquist_closed_the_argument_by_stating_the_case_was_submitted.
Read the official transcript for this argument · Official argument details
Sources used for this argument breakdown
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 23, lines 43-31 — Transcript, file page 23, lines 43-31
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 15-15 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 15-15
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 5-13 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 5-13
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 51, lines 3-5 — Transcript, file page 51, lines 3-5
A citizen's guide to the whole case
What this case is about
This case tests the standard of review for federal sentencing decisions. the side that brought the case seeks uniform application of sentencing rules. The government argues for deference to trial court expertise.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 23, lines 43-31 — Transcript, file page 23, lines 43-31
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 15-15 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 15-15
How the case got here
The Supreme Court heard oral argument in this case on January 8, 2001.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 5-13 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 5-13
What each side wants
the side that brought the case wants de novo review to ensure uniform sentencing.
The government wants deferential review to respect trial court discretion.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 23, lines 43-31 — Transcript, file page 23, lines 43-31
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 15-15 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 15-15
What each side says
the side that brought the case argues uniformity requires fresh appellate review of mixed questions.
The government argues deference is proper due to the trial court's role.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 23, lines 43-31 — Transcript, file page 23, lines 43-31
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 15-15 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 15-15
What the justices asked
Chief Justice Rehnquist asked if the case was submitted.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 51, lines 3-5 — Transcript, file page 51, lines 3-5
Why it matters
The standard of review shapes how consistently federal courts apply sentencing guidelines. It determines whether trial judges hold final authority over sentencing facts. This affects the predictability of criminal penalties nationwide.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 23, lines 43-31 — Transcript, file page 23, lines 43-31
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 15-15 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 15-15
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 5-13 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 5-13
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 51, lines 3-5 — Transcript, file page 51, lines 3-5
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 23, lines 43-31 — Transcript, file page 23, lines 43-31
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 15-15 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 15-15
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 23, lines 43-31 — Transcript, file page 23, lines 43-31
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 15-15 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 15-15
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.