October Term 2018 · Docket 17-1672
Can a judge add prison time based on a lower proof standard?
The dispute centers on whether a judge can extend a prison sentence using a preponderance of the evidence standard.
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
Mr. Lunn argued that the statute stretches the original jury-authorized sentence.
Mr. Feigin stated that the lower standard was sufficient for revocation.
justice_sotomayor_questioned_if_other_laws_allow_imprisonment_by_preponderance
justice_ginsburg_questioned_the_jump_from_zero_to_five_years
Read the official transcript for this argument · Official argument details
Sources used for this argument breakdown
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 10, lines 26-34 — Transcript, file page 10, lines 26-34
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 11, lines 23-30 — Transcript, file page 11, lines 23-30
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 11, lines 7-8 — Transcript, file page 11, lines 7-8
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 35, lines 13-16 — Transcript, file page 35, lines 13-16
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 16-26 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 16-26
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 27-30 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 27-30
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 33-34 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 33-34
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 8-15 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 8-15
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 11-22 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 11-22
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 25-26 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 25-26
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 13-18 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 13-18
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 23-25 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 23-25
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 21-30 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 21-30
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 9, lines 13-25 — Transcript, file page 9, lines 13-25
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 9, lines 27-36 — Transcript, file page 9, lines 27-36
A citizen's guide to the whole case
What this case is about
This case examines the legal standard for adding prison time after a supervised release violation.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 35, lines 13-16 — Transcript, file page 35, lines 13-16
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 16-26 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 16-26
How the case got here
The Supreme Court heard oral argument in this case on February 26, 2019.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 8-15 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 8-15
What each side wants
The government wants to keep the lower proof standard for adding prison time.
The defendant wants the higher proof standard applied to any added prison time.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 35, lines 13-16 — Transcript, file page 35, lines 13-16
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 16-26 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 16-26
What each side says
The government argues the lower standard is sufficient for revoking supervised release.
The defendant argues the lower standard stretches the original jury-authorized sentence.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 35, lines 13-16 — Transcript, file page 35, lines 13-16
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 16-26 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 16-26
What the justices asked
Justice Sotomayor asked if other laws allow imprisonment by a preponderance of the evidence.
Justice Ginsburg asked about the jump from zero to five years based on a finding.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 10, lines 26-34 — Transcript, file page 10, lines 26-34
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 11, lines 23-30 — Transcript, file page 11, lines 23-30
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 11, lines 7-8 — Transcript, file page 11, lines 7-8
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 27-30 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 27-30
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 33-34 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 33-34
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 11-22 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 11-22
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 25-26 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 25-26
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 13-18 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 13-18
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 23-25 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 23-25
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 21-30 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 21-30
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 9, lines 13-25 — Transcript, file page 9, lines 13-25
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 9, lines 27-36 — Transcript, file page 9, lines 27-36
Why it matters
This case defines the proof needed to extend a prison sentence. It affects how judges calculate additional time. It impacts the rights of people on supervised release. It clarifies the role of the jury in sentencing.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 35, lines 13-16 — Transcript, file page 35, lines 13-16
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 16-26 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 16-26
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 10, lines 26-34 — Transcript, file page 10, lines 26-34
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 11, lines 23-30 — Transcript, file page 11, lines 23-30
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 11, lines 7-8 — Transcript, file page 11, lines 7-8
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 27-30 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 27-30
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 33-34 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 33-34
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 8-15 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 8-15
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 11-22 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 11-22
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 25-26 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 25-26
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 13-18 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 13-18
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 23-25 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 23-25
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 21-30 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 21-30
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 9, lines 13-25 — Transcript, file page 9, lines 13-25
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 9, lines 27-36 — Transcript, file page 9, lines 27-36
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 35, lines 13-16 — Transcript, file page 35, lines 13-16
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 16-26 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 16-26
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 35, lines 13-16 — Transcript, file page 35, lines 13-16
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 16-26 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 16-26
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.