Shouldn’t SCOTUS just do Rita right and go from there?
As noted here, the Supreme Court officially took the Claiborne case off its docket through this per curiam opinion that vacates the Eighth Circuit’s opinion in the wake of Mario Claiborne’s death (basics here). But this expected move now raises a host of questions about what the Justices will and should do with the important issues raised and extensively briefed in Claiborne.
As detailed here, Claiborne’s lawyer has suggested an alternative case, Beal v. U.S. (docket 06-8498), for the Court to take up in order to be able to address directly reasonableness review in a case involving a below-guideline sentence. I believe the SG’s office has not yet officially weighed in on this suggestion, though perhaps something will be filed soon in the wake of the Court’s official ruling in Claiborne.
For a variety of reasons, I hope SCOTUS does not take up and rush through another case to replace the Claiborne case. Claiborne involved a distinct set of facts built on a unique lower court record. Though perhaps the Justices had a view of the Claiborne case that was not focused on its unique facts, all sound sentencing determinations are necessarily fact- and context-specific. (Indeed, as I argued in various amicus filings in Claiborne and Rita (available here), 3553(a) can be understood to demand fact- and context-specific reasoned judgments by district courts at initial sentencings and by circuit courts applying reasonableness review.)
Though lower courts certainly need additional SCOTUS guidance on how to deal with below-guideline arguments and sentences, the Justices still can and should address the most pressing post-Booker issues through a complete ruling in Rita. Though the Roberts Court has tended toward narrow rulings, I believe both judicial modesty and doctrinal clarity can be best served if the Court provides a thorough analysis and ruling in Rita and then just waits to consider and address other post-Booker issues through the Court’s standard review procedures.