The court today handed down three cases- Tennessee Secondary School Athletic Assn. v. Brentwood Academy, Tellabs v. Makor, and Rita v. US.

In Rita, the court held that sentences that fall within the sentencing guidelines can be presumptively reasonable. The ‘reasonableness’ test is an important test that appellate courts use to determine whether or not a lower court’s ruling stands. If it is held that a sentence is ‘reasonable,’ higher courts will not grant an individual a re-sentencing. If it is held that the sentence is unreasonable, a citizen may be granted a re-sentencing. In this case, the Supreme Court upheld the circuit court’s decision to presume that Rita’s sentence was reasonable because it fell within guidelines.

The sister-case to Rita was Claiborne v. US. The Claiborne case was thrown out after the defendant passed way, so the court had to delay ruling on whether or not a ruling that is below sentencing guidelines can always be considered reasonable.


2 Responses to “If You Adhere To The Law, You Are Adhering To The Law”

  1. 1 A J

    The court should really have ruled in Claiborne. Mootness is a convenient excuse not an absolute rule (see:Roe v Wade).

  1. 1 Looking Ahead to Gall v. US at DailyWrit

Leave a Reply





Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Categories

Random Posts