Logourl black
From our private database of 13,800+ case briefs...

Mistretta v. United States

United States Supreme Court
488 U.S. 361 (1989)


Facts

Congress enacted the Sentencing Reform Act of 1984 (the Act) to combat serious disparities in sentencing for criminal punishment. The Act: (1) rejects rehabilitation and declares that punishment should be “retributive, educational, deterrent, and incapacitative”; (2) creates the United States Sentencing Commission (Commission), which sets sentencing guidelines (Guidelines); (3) makes sentences essentially final; (4) imposes the Guidelines on federal courts; and (5) authorizes limited appellate review of sentences. The Commission is an independent body in the judicial branch comprised of members appointed by the president. At least three members must be judges. The Commission must set, review, and revise the Guidelines, report to Congress, set policies, and monitor and train judicial actors. Here, John Mistretta (defendant) was indicted in federal court on drug charges. Mistretta moved for a declaration that the Guidelines were unconstitutional on the grounds that the Act violated the separation of powers and nondelegation doctrines. The district court concluded that the Commission should be treated as an executive branch entity and the Guidelines as agency rules. Though the court expressed reservations about the Act, it rejected Mistretta’s argument. Mistretta pled guilty and was sentenced to prison, pursuant to the Guidelines. Mistretta filed notice of appeal. Before the Eighth Circuit ruled, Mistretta and the government petitioned the United States Supreme Court for certiorari, which was granted on the basis of “imperative public importance.”

Rule of Law

The rule of law is the black letter law upon which the court rested its decision. To access this section, start your 7-day free trial of Quimbee for Law Students.

Issue

The issue section includes the dispositive legal issue in the case phrased as a question. To access this section, start your 7-day free trial of Quimbee for Law Students.

Holding and Reasoning (Blackmun, J.)

The holding and reasoning section includes:

  • A “yes” or “no” answer to the question framed in the issue section;
  • A summary of the majority or plurality opinion, using the CREAC method; and
  • The procedural disposition (e.g. reversed and remanded, affirmed, etc.).

To access this section, start your 7-day free trial of Quimbee for Law Students.

Dissent (Scalia, J.)

The dissent section is for members only and includes a summary of the dissenting judge or justice’s opinion. To access this section, start your 7-day free trial of Quimbee for Law Students.

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 97,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Vanderbilt, Berkeley, and the University of Illinois—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students. Read our student testimonials.

  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students. Read more about Quimbee.

Here's why 168,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 13,800 briefs, keyed to 187 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
  • The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
  • Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
  • Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.