Mistretta v. United States
Significance, The Sentencing Reform Act Comes Under Challenge, "an Unusual Hybrid", Dissent: "a Sort Of Junior-varsity Congress"
That the Sentencing Reform Act of 1984 violated the constitutional separation-of-powers doctrine by establishing a Sentencing Commission of judges with "excessive legislative powers."
Chief Lawyer for Petitioner
Alan B. Morrison
Chief Lawyer for Respondent
Charles Fried, U.S. Solicitor General
Justices for the Court
Harry A. Blackmun (writing for the Court), William J. Brennan, Jr., Anthony M. Kennedy, Thurgood Marshall, Sandra Day O'Connor, William H. Rehnquist, John Paul Stevens, Byron R. White
Date of Decision
18 January 1989
The Constitution does not prevent Congress from appointing a body of experts within the judicial branch to develop guidelines for matters unique to their area of knowledge, making the Sentencing Reform Act valid.
Bacon, Donald C., et al., eds. The Encyclopedia of the United States Congress New York: Simon & Schuster, 1995.
- Inc. v. Scheidler National Organization for Women - Significance, Access V. Protest, A New Reading Of Rico, A Chilling Effect, Impact
- Minnesota v. Olson - Significance, Impact
- Mistretta v. United States - Further Readings
- Mistretta v. United States - Significance
- Mistretta v. United States - The Sentencing Reform Act Comes Under Challenge
- Mistretta v. United States - "an Unusual Hybrid"
- Mistretta v. United States - Dissent: "a Sort Of Junior-varsity Congress"
- Mistretta v. United States - Impact
- Mistretta v. United States - Related Cases
- Mistretta v. United States - Checks And Balances
- Other Free Encyclopedias