Samuel Alito Says Supreme Court Forcing Judges To Do ‘Mind-Bending Exercises’

Justice Samuel Alito said a U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling requires judges to engage in “mind-bending exercises” in a dissent on Friday.

Alito said under the court’s decision, the judge must review “the nature and circumstances” of a defendant’s offense but is not allowed to consider “the seriousness of the offense.”

“The Court interprets the Sentencing Reform Act to mean that a federal district-court judge, when considering whether to impose or alter a term of supervised release, must engage in mind-bending exercises,” Alito wrote in a dissent, joined by Justice Neil Gorsuch.

Why It Matters

The court’s ruling could influence what judges take into account when considering changes to the terms of a supervised release.

What To Know

The case centers around Edgardo Esteras, who was arrested and charged with domestic violence and other crimes while on supervised release for conspiring to distribute heroin. A district court revoked his supervised release and ordered 24 months of reimprisonment, arguing that his sentence must “promote respect for the law.”

The Supreme Court said the district court was not permitted to consider a statute requiring the sentence to “reflect the seriousness of the offense, to promote respect for the law, and to provide just punishment for the offense.”

Justice Amy Coney Barrett delivered the court’s majority opinion. She wrote that “text, structure, and precedent all point in the same direction” in finding that district courts cannot consider the seriousness of the offense in revoking supervised release.

Barrett said district courts “generally enjoy discretion over sentencing,” but Congress chose to limit their discretion in this instance.

Alito said the court failed to consider the practical application of its ruling.

“Veteran trial judges often complain that their appellate colleagues live in a world of airy abstractions and do not give enough thought to the practical effects of their holdings. Today’s decision is likely to earn the rank of Exhibit A in the trial bench’s catalog of appellate otherworldliness,” Alito said.

Alito argued that the court’s ruling lacks textual support and “it does not solve the problem faced by a judge who is compelled to consider the nature and circumstances of an offense but forbidden to consider its seriousness.”

“Imposing such a soul-searching obligation as a requirement that may be enforced in litigation is utterly impractical,” Alito wrote.

What People Are Saying

Justice Samuel Alito, in a dissenting opinion: “None of this has any textual support, and it does not solve the problem faced by a judge who is compelled to consider the nature and circumstances of an offense but forbidden to consider its seriousness.”

Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, in an opinion concurring in part and concurring in the judgment: “Like the Court, I agree with Esteras: Courts cannot consider this omitted sentencing purpose when revoking supervised release. That answer is straightforward and responsive.”

What Happens Next

The Supreme Court’s ruling vacated the decision by the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals and remanded the case for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

Do you have a story that Newsweek should be covering? Do you have any questions about this story? Contact LiveNews@newsweek.com.