http://nicic.gov/Topic/556-Supreme-Court-rssThe latest electronic resources added to the National Institute of Corrections online library for the topic of Supreme court.Millbrook was being held in the custody of the U.S. Federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP) when she was sexually assaulted. She contends that sovereign immunity does not apply to the officers in this instance since the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA) waives their immunity. The Supreme Court agreed that the FTCA allows for suits to be brought against federal law enforcement officers for committing intentional torts during the performance of their jobs. This judgement will positively impact the ability of federal inmates to file lawsuits against federal officers who commit sexual attacks in federal correctional facilities. http://nicic.gov/Library/0271774/10/2013 4:19:41 PM“By requiring that all children convicted of homicide receive lifetime incarceration without possibility of parole, regardless of their age and age-related characteristics and the nature of their crimes, the mandatory sentencing schemes before us violate this principle of proportionality, and so the Eighth Amendment’s ban on cruel and unusual punishment. We accordingly reverse the judgments of the Arkansas Supreme Court and Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals and remand the cases for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion” (p. 27).http://nicic.gov/Library/0262026/26/2012 12:48:03 PMThe “search procedures at the county jails struck a reasonable balance between inmate privacy and the needs of the institutions, and thus the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments do not require adoption of the framework and rules petitioners proposes” (p. 2). The judgment of the Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit is affirmed.http://nicic.gov/Library/0259476/6/2012 3:44:00 PMThe U.S. Supreme Court affirmed the ruling by the Kentucky Supreme Court that the Commonwealth's lethal injection protocol "does not violate the Eighth Amendment because it does not create a substantial risk of wanton and unnecessary infliction of pain, torture, or lingering death" (p. 1-2).http://nicic.gov/Library/0230415/2/2008 3:40:22 PMThe Supreme Court found that a District Judge "may consider the disparity between the [Federal Sentencing] Guidelines' treatment of crack and powder cocaine offenses" when determining an offender's sentence. Under the "United States v. Booker," the cocaine Guidelines (like any other Guideline) are advisory only, not mandatory. The judgment of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit is reversed.http://nicic.gov/Library/0227501/3/2008 5:28:13 PMThe Supreme Court found that a sentence constituting a substantial variance from the range recommended by the Federal Sentencing Guidelines can not be reversed by a court of appeals utilizing a "proportionality test" and requiring justification by extraordinary circumstances. The "court of appeals must review all sentences - whether inside, just outside, or significantly outside the Guidelines range - under a deferential abuse-of-discretion standard" (p. 2). The judgment of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit is reversed as the District Judge's decision was reasonable.http://nicic.gov/Library/0227491/3/2008 4:58:53 PM"Held: The Sixth Circuit's rules [requiring prisoners to exhaust prison grievance procedures before filing suit] are not required by the PLRA [Prison Litigation Reform Act], and crafting and imposing such rules exceeds the proper limits of the judicial review" (p. 2).http://nicic.gov/Library/0221102/26/2007 4:38:20 PM"Held: The DSL (determinate sentencing law), by placing sentence-elevating factfinding within the judge's province, violates a defendant's right to trial by jury safe-guarded by the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments" (p. 1)http://nicic.gov/Library/0221172/22/2007 12:54:32 PMThe issue of whether restricting the availability of newspapers, magazines, and photographs to level 2 inmates housed in the Long Term Segregation Unit (LTSU) involves a violation of the First Amendment is discussed in this syllabus. The Supreme Court reversed and remanded the Third Court's decision that "prison regulation could not be supported as a matter of law," thus a violation of inmates' rights.http://nicic.gov/Library/02162410/31/2006 10:33:58 AMThe impact of United States v. Booker is assessed. Seven chapters follow an executive summary: introduction; post-Booker appellate jurisprudence; implementation of the advisory guideline system; trends in federal sentencing practices; regional and demographic differences in federal sentencing practices; impact of Booker on specific offense- and offender-issues; and conclusion. "The majority [85.9%] of federal cases continue to be sentenced in conformance with the sentencing guidelines" (p. vi).http://nicic.gov/Library/02132210/31/2006 10:33:57 AMRecommended changes to federal sentencing statutes due to "Blakely v. Washington" and "U.S. v. Booker" are provided. "Blakely v. Washington" found a maximum sentence increased by a judge to be a violation of the Sixth Amendment right to trial by jury. The Blakely verdict was found to apply to Federal Sentencing Guidelines in "U.S. v. Booker."http://nicic.gov/Library/02103310/31/2006 10:33:56 AMThe court held theta the "procedures by which Ohio's New Policy classifies prisoners for placement at its Supermax facility provide prisoners with sufficient protection to comply with the Due Process Clause" (p. 2).http://nicic.gov/Library/02061110/31/2006 10:33:54 AM"Held: Section 3 of RLUIPA [Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000], on its face, qualifies as a permissible accommodation that is not barred by the Establishment Clause [of the First Amendment]" (p. 2).http://nicic.gov/Library/02056010/31/2006 10:33:54 AMThe procedural protections afforded to a prisoner by the Due Process Clause as applied to the process of assignment to and confinement in supermax facilities are explained. This brief contains sections covering the interest of Amici Curiae, summary of argument, argument, and conclusion. Four points comprise the argument: the use of supermaximum security confinement for prolonged, indefinite periods through administrative assignment exposes prisoners to harsh, atypical dehumanizing conditions; prolonged supermax confinement produces significant adverse psychological consequences for prisoners; under these circumstances, the constitutional principles of due process require at a minimum the procedural protections that the courts below properly found lacking in the Ohio State Penitentiary; and procedural safeguards are required to protect the internationally recognized human rights of prisoners.http://nicic.gov/Library/02037310/31/2006 10:33:53 AMThis article explains how United States v. Booker offers little guidance to those individuals at the state level involved in offender sentencing. Topics covered include: unpacking the Booker holdings -- substance and solution; reading Booker in light of Blakely; the source of the legal rule -- a distinction rejected; voluntary sentencing guidelines -- approved and clarified; a cautionary tale about traditional sentencing findings; no comment on retroactivity; harmless error analysis; and issues not addressed in Booker.http://nicic.gov/Library/02027310/31/2006 10:33:53 AMAccess to a syllabus in which the U.S. Supreme Court concludes that the "Sixth Amendment as construed in Blakely applies to the Federal Sentencing guidelines" can found at this website. The Seventh Circuit Court "held that the sentence [increased by a judge] violated the Sixth Amendment and instructed the District Court either to sentence Booker within the sentencing range supported by the jury's findings or to hold a separate sentencing hearing before a jury" which the Supreme Court affirmed (p. 1). This judgment also contained No. 04-105, United States v. Fanfan, which involved a District Judge who would not extend a sentence beyond the time set by the jury. The U.S. Government filed a notice of appeal which the Supreme Court vacated. Both cases were remanded.http://nicic.gov/Library/02021610/31/2006 10:33:52 AMThe "legal considerations raised by Blakely and . . . further implications of the ruling within and beyond state structured sentencing systems" are discussed (p. 2). This report is comprised of the following sections: executive summary; the holding; the court's reasoning and the legal issues raised; Blakely's predecessors; Blakely and the Sixth Amendment; and glossary.http://nicic.gov/Library/01997810/31/2006 10:33:51 AMState sentencing systems affected by Blakely and ways to respond to Blakely and maintain judicial sentencing authority are examined. Blakely will fundamentally affect six states with presumptive sentencing guidelines systems and eight states with presumptive (non-guidelines) sentencing systems. Possibly affected by Blakely will be six states with voluntary sentencing systems and two states with presumptive sentencing guidelines in indeterminate systems. State systems may be reconciled with Blakely through the use of jury fact-finding or fully voluntary guidelines.http://nicic.gov/Library/01987010/31/2006 10:33:51 AM"Held: Because the facts supporting petitioner's exceptional sentence [increased by the judge from the maximum sentence of 53 months to a statutorily enumerated sentence of 90 months] were neither admitted by petitioner nor found by a jury, the sentence violated his Sixth Amendment right to trial by jury (p. 1)." http://nicic.gov/Library/01976810/31/2006 10:33:49 AMThe ability of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement Bureau (ICE) to comply with the U.S. Supreme Courts ruling on the lawlessness of indefinite detention in Zadvydas v. Davis is assessed. Observations made by the U.S. General Accounting Office (GAO) include: ICEs case management system does not help assure timely custody reviews and hampers ICEs ability to determine whether the reviews are consistent with the Zadvydas decision; ICE lacks assurance that aliens released on orders of supervision met the conditions of their release; and ICE has had some success working with the Department of State when travel documents are difficult to obtain. Recommendations, ICEs response, and the GAOs evaluation of ICEs response are also provided. http://nicic.gov/Library/01975410/31/2006 10:33:48 AMThe court held that "the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth District erred in ruling that the California Court of Appeal's decision affirming Lendro Andrade's two consecutive terms of 25 years to life in prison for a "third strike" conviction is contrary to, or an unreasonable application of, clearly established federal law as determined by this Court" (p. 1).http://nicic.gov/Library/01862610/31/2006 10:33:44 AMThe court held that "[e]xecutions of mentally retarded criminals are 'cruel and unusual punishments' prohibited by the Eighth Amendment" (p. 1).http://nicic.gov/Library/01784110/31/2006 10:33:43 AMThe court held that "Arizona's capital sentencing scheme violates the Sixth Amendment's jury trial guarantee by entrusting to a judge the finding of a fact raising the defendant's maximum penalty" (p. 1).http://nicic.gov/Library/01784010/31/2006 10:33:43 AMSince death penalty statistics were first collected on a regular basis starting in 1930, this overview will focus upon the history of the death penalty in the U.S. from 1930 onward. Four sections comprise this document: the death penalty in the U.S. -- 1930-1967, moratorium on executions, Furman invalidates most death penalty laws, new laws upheld, executions resume, Supreme Court decisions refine death penalty laws, and current status; selected U.S. Supreme Court decisions on the constitutionality and refinement of death penalty laws; recent developments and future -- U.N. Special Rapporteur on Extrajudicial, Summary or Arbitrary Executions, Amnesty International, and the Death Penalty Information Center (DPIC); and other historical resources for the U.S. and England.http://nicic.gov/Library/01740410/31/2006 10:33:42 AMThis decision held that the "warrantless search of Knights, supported by reasonable suspicion and authorized by a probation condition, satisfied the Fourth Amendment (p. 1)."http://nicic.gov/Library/01734410/31/2006 10:33:42 AM