Skip to main content

United States v. Haymond

Updated Oct 21, 2026

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
The Supreme Court wiped out the Tenth Circuit’s judgment and sent the case back (vacated and remanded).
Who it affects
Andre Haymond’s case was sent back after the Supreme Court wiped out the appeals court’s ruling (vacated it); four justices said applying the law to him violated his right to have a jury decide whether he committed the conduct, and his case remains unresolved.

Summary: written with AI from the case record.

Illustration for United States v. Haymond
Conceptual illustration · AI-generated

What it's about

Justice Gorsuch, joined by Justices Ginsburg, Sotomayor, and Kagan, concluded that applying 18 U.S.C. § 3583(k) to Haymond violated his right to a jury trial; Justice Breyer agreed with the result but wrote separately.

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
Majority · 4joined the Court's opinion
  1. Kagan
  2. Ginsburg
  3. Sotomayor
  4. Gorsuchwrote the opinion
Concurring · 1agreed with the result, wrote separately
  1. Breyerwrote separately
Dissenting · 4disagreed with the result
  1. Thomas
  2. Kavanaugh
  3. Roberts
  4. Alitowrote the dissent
5 justices joined the judgment (1 writing separately), 4 dissented.

Documents

4

Docket activity

11
  • Case data updated: summary, question_presented, generation_metadata

    Oct 21, 2026 · Court records

  • New analysis added

    Oct 14, 2026 · Court records

  • AI analysis generated: Impact Analysis

    Oct 14, 2026 · Generated

  • New analysis added

    Oct 14, 2026 · Court records

  • AI analysis generated: Opinion Summary

    Oct 14, 2026 · Generated

Show 6 more
  • New analysis added

    Sep 18, 2026 · Court records

  • AI analysis generated: Decision Record

    Sep 18, 2026 · Generated

  • Opinion added: Haymond

    Jun 26, 2019 · Court records

  • Opinion added: opinion

    Jun 26, 2019 · Court records

  • Brief added: Petition

    Jun 15, 2018 · Court records

  • Brief added: Questions Presented

    Court records

Sources

Primary materials plus reporting. Best-effort analysis: this explainer relies on a mix of primary materials and trusted secondary sources. Official filings and opinions remain authoritative.

Checked Oct 14, 2026Methodology

Court records and filings

Reporting and analysis