Criminal sentences are rarely reversed for being too long. Of the approximately one million federal sentences imposed in the past fifteen years, appellate courts have only held about two dozen substantively unreasonable. Judges have, even in public statements, described substantive reasonableness review as “functionally nonexistent” and “a waste of time.” Against this backdrop, three decisions from the Sixth Circuit published within the last year are nothing short of remarkable. In each case, the panel concluded that the district court, despite following standard processes and procedures, had nonetheless imposed a substantively unreasonable sentence. This Article examines these cases in detail, to glean lessons for scholars and practitioners. I argue that, in each decision, the Sixth Circuit took a bird’s eye perspective to the issues at hand, reaching a common-sense decision based on aggregative sentencing data, case law, and the defendant’s prior criminal history. These factors, I further argue, provide a model for other appellate courts who hope to engage in more searching substantive reasonableness review. I also acknowledge some limits to the Sixth Circuit’s approach. In each of these three cases, the appellate court reined in district courts for imposing above-guideline sentences. The decisions, however, say little about what—if any—role an appellate court should play in mitigating harsh sentences that are within (or even below) the guidelines. Reform of such sentences may require stakeholders to look elsewhere, including either legislative reform or appointment of a more diverse set of district judges.
The Environmental Law and Community Engagement Clinic at the University of Virginia School of Law filed this amicus brief on behalf of San Bernardino...
Who has the legal right to challenge decisions by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration? And should the moral umbrage of a group of anti-abortion...
President Joe Biden promised during his State of the Union address on March 7, 2024, that he would make the right to get an abortion a federal law.
“If...
Gradualism should have won out in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health, exerting gravitational influence on the majority and dissenters alike. In general...
Today, legal culture is shaped by One Big Question: should courts, particularly the US Supreme Court, have a lot of power? This question is affecting...
On December 15, 2023, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit issued its decision in Illumina, Inc. v. FTC. Although the court vacated and...
On January 17, the Supreme Court heard arguments in what are potentially the most significant commercial law cases of the last decade. In the...
This Article introduces the Jurist-Derived Judicial Ideology Scores (JuDJIS), an expert-sourced measure of judicial traits that can locate nearly...
It is widely believed that President Donald Trump’s judicial appointments reflected a strategy of appeasing evangelical Christians and other religious...
Cyber stalking involves repeated, often relentless targeting of someone with abuse. Death and rape threats may be part of a perpetrator’s playbook...
We apply a dynamic influence model to the opinions of the U.S. federal courts to examine the role of the U.S. Supreme Court in influencing the...
Generative AI is already beginning to alter legal practice. If optimistic forecasts prove warranted, how might this technology transform judicial...
Professor Elizabeth Scott, the chief reporter of the American Law Institute’s (ALI) Restatement of Children and the Law, has often observed that the...
The idea of institutionalism figures prominently in today’s debates about the role of federal courts in American democracy. For example, Chief Justice...
The demise of Roe v. Wade has raised a host of religious liberty questions that were submerged prior to the Supreme Court’s decision in Dobbs v...