Mistretta v. United States

Media Items
Mistretta v. United States - Oral Argument
Get Adobe Flash Player
Mistretta v. United States - Opinion Announcement
Get Adobe Flash Player
Advocates
Paul M. Bator (Argued the cause for the United States Sentencing Commission as amicus curiae urging affirmance)
Alan B. Morrison (Argued the cause for the petitioner in No. 87-7028 and the respondent in No. 87-1904)
Charles Fried (Argued the cause for the United States in both cases)
Case Basics
Docket No.: 
87-7028
Petitioner: 
Mistretta
Respondent: 
United States
Consolidation: 
United States v. Mistretta, No. 87-1904
Opinion: 
488 U.S. 361 (1989)
Location No location information present.

Cite this page
The Oyez Project, Mistretta v. United States , 488 U.S. 361 (1989)
available at: (http://oyez.org/cases/1980-1989/1988/1988_87_7028)
Facts of the Case: 

Congress created the United States Sentencing Commission under the Sentencing Reform Act of 1984. This Commission was to attack the wide discrepancies in sentencing by federal court judges by creating sentencing guidelines for all federal offenses. It was to be part of the judicial branch, with members appointed by the President and approved by the Senate. John Mistretta (convicted of three counts of selling cocaine) claimed that the Act violated the delegation-of-powers principle by giving the Commission "excessive legislative powers." This case was decided together with United States v. Mistretta.

Question: 

Did the Act violate the nondelegation doctrine of the Constitution?

Conclusion: 

The Court found the Act to be valid because although Congress cannot generally delegate its legislative power to another Branch, the nondelegation doctrine does not prevent Congress from obtaining assistance from coordinate Branches. The test of validity is that an "intelligible principle" must be established by the legislature where the agency of the delegated authority must adhere to specific directives that govern its authority. The delegation to the Commission was sufficiently detailed and specific to meet these requirements. The Commission was given substantial authority and discretion in setting the guidelines; however, Congress established a classification hierarchy for federal crimes that the Commission was to use as an outline for its work.

Decisions

Decision: 8 votes for United States, 1 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 18 U.S.C. 3551

Sort by Ideology

Voted with the majority
Rehnquist
Voted with the majority
Brennan
Voted with the majority
White
Voted with the majority
Marshall
Wrote the majority opinion
Blackmun
Voted with the majority
Stevens
Voted with the majority
O'Connor
Wrote a dissent
Scalia
Voted with the majority
Kennedy

Full Opinion by Justice Harry A. Blackmun

Timeplots Affiliate

Timeplots.com: A Visual History of the Supreme Court