October Term 2007 · Docket 06-1646
Does a prior conviction raise the maximum sentence for a new crime?
The dispute centers on whether a defendant's criminal history legally increases the statutory maximum penalty for a current offense.
Verified source milestones
- — An official oral-argument transcript was verified.
- — 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 government advocate stated that the Act is a key tool for incapacitating serial offenders.
The defendant advocate claimed the government's theory conflicts with the statutory language.
Justice Roberts asked how the recidivist status differs from other sentencing factors.
Justice Kennedy inquired about statutes that use the term offender instead of offense.
Read the official transcript for this argument · Official argument details
Sources used for this argument breakdown
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 11, lines 3-13 — Transcript, file page 11, lines 3-13
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 11, lines 43-7 — Transcript, file page 11, lines 43-7
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 12, lines 37-47 — Transcript, file page 12, lines 37-47
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 26, lines 21-49 — Transcript, file page 26, lines 21-49
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 17-9 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 17-9
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 7-15 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 7-15
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 11-23 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 11-23
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 11-17 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 11-17
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 37-51 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 37-51
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 55, lines 21-25 — Transcript, file page 55, lines 21-25
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 55, lines 27-27 — Transcript, file page 55, lines 27-27
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 55, lines 29-33 — Transcript, file page 55, lines 29-33
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 56, lines 31-33 — Transcript, file page 56, lines 31-33
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 15-21 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 15-21
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 35-39 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 35-39
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 23-27 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 23-27
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 51-3 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 51-3
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 9, lines 51-11 — Transcript, file page 9, lines 51-11
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 9, lines 9-11 — Transcript, file page 9, lines 9-11
A citizen's guide to the whole case
What this case is about
The case tests how courts calculate the highest possible sentence for a new crime when the defendant has prior convictions.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 26, lines 21-49 — Transcript, file page 26, lines 21-49
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 17-9 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 17-9
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 55, lines 27-27 — Transcript, file page 55, lines 27-27
How the case got here
The Supreme Court heard oral argument in this case on January 15, 2008.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 7-15 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 7-15
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 56, lines 31-33 — Transcript, file page 56, lines 31-33
What each side wants
The government wants the court to allow prior convictions to raise the maximum sentence for the current crime.
The defendant wants the court to limit the maximum sentence based only on the current offense's statutory text.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 26, lines 21-49 — Transcript, file page 26, lines 21-49
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 17-9 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 17-9
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 55, lines 27-27 — Transcript, file page 55, lines 27-27
What each side says
The government argues that recidivism statutes define prior offenses partly by their maximum imprisonment terms.
The defendant argues that the statutory language does not support using prior convictions to increase the current maximum.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 26, lines 21-49 — Transcript, file page 26, lines 21-49
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 17-9 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 17-9
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 55, lines 27-27 — Transcript, file page 55, lines 27-27
What the justices asked
Justice Scalia asked why the higher maximum would not apply to a first-time offender.
Justice Stevens asked if a dispute over recidivist status requires the record to establish it definitively.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 11, lines 3-13 — Transcript, file page 11, lines 3-13
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 11, lines 43-7 — Transcript, file page 11, lines 43-7
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 12, lines 37-47 — Transcript, file page 12, lines 37-47
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 11-23 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 11-23
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 11-17 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 11-17
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 37-51 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 37-51
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 55, lines 21-25 — Transcript, file page 55, lines 21-25
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 55, lines 29-33 — Transcript, file page 55, lines 29-33
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 56, lines 31-33 — Transcript, file page 56, lines 31-33
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 15-21 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 15-21
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 35-39 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 35-39
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 23-27 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 23-27
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 51-3 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 51-3
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 9, lines 51-11 — Transcript, file page 9, lines 51-11
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 9, lines 9-11 — Transcript, file page 9, lines 9-11
Why it matters
This issue determines how judges calculate the highest possible prison term for repeat offenders. It affects the severity of sentences for crimes committed by individuals with prior records. The outcome shapes the balance between punishing current conduct and accounting for criminal history.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 26, lines 21-49 — Transcript, file page 26, lines 21-49
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 17-9 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 17-9
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 55, lines 27-27 — Transcript, file page 55, lines 27-27
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 11, lines 3-13 — Transcript, file page 11, lines 3-13
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 11, lines 43-7 — Transcript, file page 11, lines 43-7
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 12, lines 37-47 — Transcript, file page 12, lines 37-47
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 7-15 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 7-15
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 11-23 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 11-23
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 11-17 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 11-17
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 37-51 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 37-51
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 55, lines 21-25 — Transcript, file page 55, lines 21-25
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 55, lines 29-33 — Transcript, file page 55, lines 29-33
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 56, lines 31-33 — Transcript, file page 56, lines 31-33
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 15-21 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 15-21
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 35-39 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 35-39
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 23-27 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 23-27
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 51-3 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 51-3
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 9, lines 51-11 — Transcript, file page 9, lines 51-11
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 9, lines 9-11 — Transcript, file page 9, lines 9-11
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 26, lines 21-49 — Transcript, file page 26, lines 21-49
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 17-9 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 17-9
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 55, lines 27-27 — Transcript, file page 55, lines 27-27
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 26, lines 21-49 — Transcript, file page 26, lines 21-49
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 17-9 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 17-9
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 55, lines 27-27 — Transcript, file page 55, lines 27-27
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.