Holguin-Hernandez v. United States

Holguin-Hernandez v. United States
Supreme Court of the United States
Argued December 10, 2019 Decided February 26, 2020
Full case name	Holguin-Hernandez, Petitioner v. United States, Respondent
Docket no.	18-7739
Citations	589 U.S. ___ (more)
Argument	Oral argument
Opinion announcement	Opinion announcement
Case history
Prior	Petition to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.
Holding
The sentence sentence imposed on the defendant is unconstitutional.
Court membership
Chief Justice John Roberts Associate Justices Clarence Thomas · Ruth Bader Ginsburg Stephen Breyer · Samuel Alito Sonia Sotomayor · Elena Kagan Neil Gorsuch · Brett Kavanaugh
Case opinions
Majority	Breyer, joined by Unanimous
Concurrence	Alito, joined by Gorsuch

Holguin-Hernandez v. United States was a United States Supreme Court case. The Court decided that the sentence imposed on the defendant was unconstitutional, in violation of the Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution, furthermore, the court affirmed the principle that the Federal Sentencing Guidelines were not mandatory.^[1]

Case description[]

Holguin-Hernandez was convicted of drug charges and sentenced to 60 months in prison and 5 years of supervised release. The government requested that an additional sentence of 12 to 18 months in prison be imposed for violation of the conditions of the previous term. The district court accepted the request and imposed an additional 12 month sentence. The defendant appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit and argued that the sentence was unconstitutional as it was greater than the nessesary sentence to accomplish its goals. The Court of Appeals found that he could not argue its unconstitutionality because he didn't argue it before the District Court. Before the Supreme Court of the United States, the court ruled that the sentence imposed was "unreasonably long" and that the Federal Sentencing Guidelines were not mandatory for judges to follow, and that he could argue for its unconstitutionality.^[2]

Influence[]

The case resulted in the re-affirmation that the Federal Sentencing Guidelines were not mandatory, it also created the principle that sentences couldn't punish over the amount that highly promote justice. The effects are seen to this day in many lower court cases.^[2]

References[]