United States v. Haymond
In brief
The judgment is vacated, and the case is remanded. 869 F. 3d 1153, vacated and remanded. JUSTICE GORSUCH, joined by JUSTICE GINSBURG, JUSTICE SO - TOMAYOR, and JUSTICE KAGAN, concluded that the application of §3583(k) in this case violated Mr. Haymond’s right to trial by jury.
- Where it stands
- Decided
Decided 5-4 · June 26, 2019 · Opinion by Justice Gorsuch
- What it’s about
- This case asked whether a federal supervised-release law could require a judge to send a defendant back to prison for at least five years based on the judge’s own finding, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the defendant committed certain new conduct.
Summary: written with AI from the case record.
What it's about
It arose after Andre Haymond, who had been convicted of possessing child pornography, was found while on supervised release to have knowingly possessed child pornography again.
Question presented
Whether the court of appeals erred in holding "unconstitutional and unenforceable" the portions of 18 U.S.C. 3583(k) that required the district court to revoke respondent's ten-year term of supervised release, and to impose five years of reimprisonment, following its finding by a preponderance of the evidence that respondent violated the conditions of his release by knowingly possessing child pornography.
What the Court decided
Result
Vacated
The vote
- Joined the judgment
- Concurred in a separate opinion
- Dissented
- Wrote an opinion
- Concurring · 1agreed with the result, wrote separately
- Breyerwrote separately
Documents
Docket activity
New analysis added
AI analysis generated: Decision Record
Opinion added: opinion
Brief added: Petition
Brief added: Questions Presented
Sources
Primary materials from the Court and the parties. Plain-English explainer. Official filings and opinions remain authoritative.