Rita v. United States
| Rita v. United States | |
|---|---|
| Argued February 20, 2007 Decided June 21, 2007 | |
| Full case name | Victor A. Rita, Petitioner v. United States |
| Docket no. | 06-5754 |
| Citations | 551 U.S. 338 (more) 127 S. Ct. 2456; 168 L. Ed. 2d 203 |
| Case history | |
| Prior | Sentence upheld by the Fourth Circuit, 177 F. App'x 357 (4th Cir. 2006). |
| Holding | |
| Federal appellate courts may apply a presumption of reasonableness to sentences imposed under the Federal Sentencing Guidelines. | |
| Court membership | |
| |
| Case opinions | |
| Majority | Breyer, joined by Roberts, Stevens, Kennedy, Ginsburg, Alito; Scalia, Thomas (Part III) |
| Concurrence | Stevens, joined by Ginsburg (all but Part II) |
| Concurrence | Scalia (in part), joined by Thomas |
| Dissent | Souter |
| Laws applied | |
| 18 U.S.C. § 3553 | |
Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338 (2007), was a United States Supreme Court case that clarified how federal courts of appeals should implement the remedy for the Sixth Amendment violation identified in United States v. Booker. In Booker, the Court held that because the Federal Sentencing Guidelines were mandatory and binding on judges in criminal cases, the Sixth Amendment required that any fact necessary to impose a sentence above the top of the authorized Guidelines range must be found by a jury beyond a reasonable doubt. The Booker remedy made the Guidelines merely advisory and commanded federal appeals courts to review criminal sentences for "reasonableness." Rita clarified that a sentence within the Guidelines range may be presumed "reasonable."