Alleyne v. United States

(Slip Opinion) OCTOBER TERM, 2012 1

Syllabus

NOTE: Where it is feasible, a syllabus (headnote) will be released, as is

being done in connection with this case, at the time the opinion is issued.

The syllabus constitutes no part of the opinion of the Court but has been

prepared by the Reporter of Decisions for the convenience of the reader.

See United States v. Detroit Timber & Lumber Co., 200 U. S. 321, 337.

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

Syllabus

ALLEYNE v. UNITED STATES

CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR

THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 11–9335. Argued January 14, 2013—Decided June 17, 2013

Petitioner Alleyne was charged, as relevant here, with using or carry-

ing a firearm in relation to a crime of violence, 18 U. S. C.

§924(c)(1)(A), which carries a 5-year mandatory minimum sentence,

§924(c)(1)(A)(i), that increases to a 7-year minimum “if the firearm is

brandished,” §924(c)(1)(A)(ii), and to a 10-year minimum “if the fire-

arm is discharged,” §924(c)(1)(A)(iii). In convicting Alleyne, the jury

form indicated that he had “[u]sed or carried a firearm during and in

relation to a crime of violence,” but not that the firearm was

“[b]randished.” When the presentence report recommended a 7-year

sentence on the §924(c) count, Alleyne objected, arguing that the ver-

dict form clearly indicated that the jury did not find brandishing be-

yond a reasonable doubt and that raising his mandatory minimum

sentence based on a sentencing judge’s finding of brandishing would

violate his Sixth Amendment right to a jury trial. The District Court

overruled his objection, relying on this Court’s holding in Harris v.

United States, 536 U. S. 545, that judicial factfinding that increases

the mandatory minimum sentence for a crime is permissible under

the Sixth Amendment. The Fourth Circuit affirmed, agreeing that

Alleyne’s objection was foreclosed by Harris.

Held: The judgment is vacated, and the case is remanded. Pp. 10–17.

457 Fed. Appx. 348, vacated and remanded.

JUSTICE THOMAS delivered the opinion of the Court with respect to

Parts I, III–B, III–C, and IV, concluding:

1. Because mandatory minimum sentences increase the penalty for

a crime, any fact that increases the mandatory minimum is an “ele-

ment” that must be submitted to the jury. Accordingly, Harris is

overruled. Pp. 10–16.

2 ALLEYNE v. UNITED STATES

Syllabus

(a) Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U. S. 466, concluded that any

“ ‘facts that increase the prescribed range of penalties to which a

criminal defendant is exposed’ ” are elements of the crime, id., at 490,

and thus the Sixth Amendment provides defendants with the right to

have a jury find those facts beyond a reasonable doubt, id., at 484.

Apprendi’s principle applies with equal force to facts increasing the

mandatory minimum, for a fact triggering a mandatory minimum al-

ters the prescribed range of sentences to which a criminal defendant

is exposed. Id., at 490. Because the legally prescribed range is the

penalty affixed to the crime, it follows that a fact increasing either

end of the range produces a new penalty and constitutes an ingredi-

ent of the offense. It is impossible to dissociate the floor of a sentenc-

ing range from the penalty affixed to the crime. The fact that crimi-

nal statutes have long specified both the floor and ceiling of sentence

ranges is evidence that both define the legally prescribed penalty. It

is also impossible to dispute that the facts increasing the legally pre-

scribed floor aggravate the punishment, heightening the loss of liber-

ty associated with the crime. Defining facts that increase a mandato-

ry minimum to be part of the substantive offense enables the

defendant to predict the legally applicable penalty from the face of

the indictment, see id., at 478–479, and preserves the jury’s historic

role as an intermediary between the State and criminal defendants,

see United States v. Gaudin, 515 U. S. 506, 510–511. In reaching a

contrary conclusion, Harris relied on the fact that the 7-year mini-

mum sentence could have been imposed with or without a judicial

finding of brandishing, because the jury’s finding authorized a sen-

tence of five years to life, 536 U. S., at 561, but that fact is beside the

point. The essential Sixth Amendment inquiry is whether a fact is

an element of the crime. Because the fact of brandishing aggravates

the legally prescribed range of allowable sentences, it constitutes an

element of a separate, aggravated offense that must be found by the

jury, regardless of what sentence the defendant might have received

had a different range been applicable. There is no basis in principle

or logic to distinguish facts that raise the maximum from those that

increase the minimum. Pp. 10–15.

(b) This ruling does not mean that any fact that influences judi-

cial discretion must be found by a jury. This Court has long recog-

nized that broad sentencing discretion, informed by judicial factfind-

ing, does not violate the Sixth Amendment. See, e.g., Dillon v. United

States, 560 U. S. ___, ___. Pp. 15–16.

2. Here, the sentencing range supported by the jury’s verdict was

five years’ imprisonment to life, but the judge, rather than the jury,

found brandishing. This increased the penalty to which Alleyne was

subjected and violated his Sixth Amendment rights. Pp. 16–17.

Cite as: 570 U. S. ____ (2013) 3

Syllabus

JUSTICE THOMAS, joined by JUSTICE GINSBURG, JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR,

and JUSTICE KAGAN, concluded in Parts II and III–A:

1. The Sixth Amendment right to trial “by an impartial jury,” in

conjunction with the Due Process Clause, requires that each element

of a crime be proved to the jury beyond a reasonable doubt. Gaudin,

515 U. S., at 510. Several divided opinions of this Court have ad-

dressed the constitutional status of a “sentencing factor.” In McMil-

lan v. Pennsylvania, 477 U. S. 79, 86, the Court held that facts found

to increase a mandatory minimum sentence are sentencing factors

that a judge could find by a preponderance of the evidence. In Ap-

prendi, however, the Court declined to extend McMillan to a New

Jersey statute that increased the maximum term of imprisonment if

the trial judge found that the crime was committed with racial bias,

530 U. S., at 470, finding that any fact that increased the prescribed

statutory maximum sentence must be an “element” of the offense to

be found by the jury. Id., at 483, n. 10, 490. Two years later in Har-

ris, the Court declined to apply Apprendi to facts that increased the

mandatory minimum sentence but not the maximum sentence. 536

U. S., at 557. Pp. 3–6.

2. The touchstone for determining whether a fact must be found by

a jury beyond a reasonable doubt is whether the fact constitutes an

“element” of the charged offense. United States v. O’Brien, 560 U. S.

218, ___. Apprendi’s definition necessarily includes not only facts

that increase the ceiling, but also those that increase the floor. At

common law, the relationship between crime and punishment was

clear. A sentence was prescribed for each offense, leaving judges

with little sentencing discretion. If a fact was by law essential to the

penalty, it was an element of the offense. There was a well-

established practice of including in the indictment, and submitting to

the jury, every fact that was a basis for imposing or increasing pun-

ishment. And this understanding was reflected in contemporaneous

court decisions and treatises. Pp. 6–10.

JUSTICE BREYER, agreeing that Harris v. United States, 536 U. S.

545, should be overruled, concluded that he continues to disagree

with Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U. S. 466, because it fails to recog-

nize the law’s traditional distinction between elements of a crime and

sentencing facts, but finds it highly anomalous to read Apprendi as

insisting that juries find sentencing facts that permit a judge to im-

pose a higher sentence while not insisting that juries find sentencing

facts that require a judge to impose a higher sentence. Overruling

Harris and applying Apprendi’s basic jury-determination rule to

mandatory minimum sentences would erase that anomaly. Where a

maximum sentence is at issue, Apprendi means that a judge who

wishes to impose a higher sentence cannot do so unless a jury finds

4 ALLEYNE v. UNITED STATES

Syllabus

the requisite statutory factual predicate. Where a mandatory mini-

mum sentence is at issue, Apprendi would mean that the government

cannot force a judge who does not wish to impose a higher sentence to

do so unless a jury finds the requisite statutory factual predicate.

Pp. 1–3.

THOMAS, J., announced the judgment of the Court and delivered the

opinion of the Court with respect to Parts I, III–B, III–C, and IV, in

which GINSBURG, BREYER, SOTOMAYOR, and KAGAN, JJ., joined, and an

opinion with respect to Parts II and III–A, in which GINSBURG, SO-

TOMAYOR , and K AGAN , JJ., joined. S OTOMAYOR , J., filed a concurring

opinion, in which GINSBURG and KAGAN, JJ., joined. BREYER, J., filed an

opinion concurring in part and concurring in the judgment. ROBERTS,

C. J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which SCALIA and KENNEDY, JJ.,

joined. ALITO, J., filed a dissenting opinion.

Cite as: 570 U. S. ____ (2013) 1

Opinion of the Court

NOTICE: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the

preliminary print of the United States Reports. Readers are requested to

notify the Reporter of Decisions, Supreme Court of the United States, Wash-

ington, D. C. 20543, of any typographical or other formal errors, in order

that corrections may be made before the preliminary print goes to press.

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

_________________

No. 11–9335

_________________

ALLEN RYAN ALLEYNE, PETITIONER v.

UNITED STATES

ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF

APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

[June 17, 2013]

JUSTICE THOMAS announced the judgment of the Court

and delivered the opinion of the Court with respect to

Parts I, III–B, III–C, and IV, and an opinion with respect

to Parts II and III–A, in which JUSTICE GINSBURG,

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR, AND JUSTICE KAGAN join.

In Harris v. United States, 536 U. S. 545 (2002), this

Court held that judicial factfinding that increases the

mandatory minimum sentence for a crime is permissible

under the Sixth Amendment. We granted certiorari to

consider whether that decision should be overruled. 568

U. S. ___ (2012).

Harris drew a distinction between facts that increase

the statutory maximum and facts that increase only the

mandatory minimum. We conclude that this distinction is

inconsistent with our decision in Apprendi v. New Jersey,

530 U. S. 466 (2000), and with the original meaning of the

Sixth Amendment. Any fact that, by law, increases the

penalty for a crime is an “element” that must be submitted

to the jury and found beyond a reasonable doubt. See id.,

at 483, n. 10, 490. Mandatory minimum sentences in-

crease the penalty for a crime. It follows, then, that any

2 ALLEYNE v. UNITED STATES

Opinion of THOMAS, J.

Opinion of the Court

fact that increases the mandatory minimum is an “ele-

ment” that must be submitted to the jury. Accordingly,

Harris is overruled.

I

Petitioner Allen Ryan Alleyne and an accomplice de-

vised a plan to rob a store manager as he drove the store’s

daily deposits to a local bank. By feigning car trouble,

they tricked the manager to stop. Alleyne’s accomplice

approached the manager with a gun and demanded the

store’s deposits, which the manager surrendered. Alleyne

was later charged with multiple federal offenses, includ-

ing robbery affecting interstate commerce, 18 U. S. C.

§1951(a), and using or carrying a firearm in relation to a

crime of violence, §924(c)(1)(A). Section 924(c)(1)(A) pro-

vides, in relevant part, that anyone who “uses or carries a

firearm” in relation to a “crime of violence” shall:

“(i) be sentenced to a term of imprisonment of not

less than 5 years;

“(ii) if the firearm is brandished, be sentenced to a

term of imprisonment of not less than 7 years; and

“(iii) if the firearm is discharged, be sentenced to a

term of imprisonment of not less than 10 years.”

The jury convicted Alleyne. The jury indicated on the

verdict form that Alleyne had “[u]sed or carried a firearm

during and in relation to a crime of violence,” but did not

indicate a finding that the firearm was “[b]randished.”

App. 40.

The presentence report recommended a 7-year sentence

on the §924(c) count, which reflected the mandatory min-

imum sentence for cases in which a firearm has been

“brandished,” §924(c)(1)(A)(ii). Alleyne objected to this

recommendation. He argued that it was clear from the

verdict form that the jury did not find brandishing beyond

a reasonable doubt and that he was subject only to the

Cite as: 570 U. S. ____ (2013) 3

Opinion of THOMAS, J.

5-year minimum for “us[ing] or carr[ying] a firearm.” Al-

leyne contended that raising his mandatory minimum

sentence based on a sentencing judge’s finding that he

brandished a firearm would violate his Sixth Amendment

right to a jury trial.

The District Court overruled Alleyne’s objection. It

explained that, under Harris, brandishing was a sentenc-

ing factor that the court could find by a preponderance of

evidence without running afoul of the Constitution. It

found that the evidence supported a finding of brandish-

ing, and sentenced Alleyne to seven years’ imprisonment

on the §924(c) count. The Court of Appeals affirmed,

likewise noting that Alleyne’s objection was foreclosed by

Harris. 457 Fed. Appx. 348 (CA4 2011) (per curiam).

II

The Sixth Amendment provides that those “accused” of

a “crime” have the right to a trial “by an impartial jury.”

This right, in conjunction with the Due Process Clause,

requires that each element of a crime be proved to the jury

beyond a reasonable doubt. United States v. Gaudin, 515

U. S. 506, 510 (1995); In re Winship, 397 U. S. 358, 364

(1970). The substance and scope of this right depend upon

the proper designation of the facts that are elements of the

crime.

A

The question of how to define a “crime”—and, thus, how

to determine what facts must be submitted to the jury—

has generated a number of divided opinions from this

Court. The principal source of disagreement is the consti-

tutional status of a special sort of fact known as a “sen-

tencing factor.” This term was first used in McMillan v.

Pennsylvania, 477 U. S. 79, 86 (1986), to refer to facts that

are not found by a jury but that can still increase the

defendant’s punishment. Following McMillan’s introduc-

4 ALLEYNE v. UNITED STATES

Opinion of THOMAS, J.

tion of this term, this Court has made a number of efforts

to delimit its boundaries.

McMillan initially invoked the distinction between

“elements” and “sentencing factors” to reject a constitu-

tional challenge to Pennsylvania’s Mandatory Minimum

Sentencing Act, 42 Pa. Cons. Stat. §9712 (1982). That law

provided that anyone convicted of certain felonies would

be subject to a mandatory minimum sentence if the judge

found, by a preponderance of evidence, that the person

“ ‘visibly possessed a firearm’ ” in the course of committing

specified crimes. 477 U. S., at 81, n. 1. While the Court

acknowledged that there were constitutional limits to the

State’s ability to “defin[e] crimes and prescrib[e] penal-

ties,” it found that the Commonwealth had permissi-

bly defined visible possession as a sentencing factor,

rather than an element. Id., at 86. In the Court’s view,

this allowed the judge, rather than the jury, to find this

fact by a preponderance of evidence without violating the

Constitution.

McMillan did not address whether legislatures’ freedom

to define facts as sentencing factors extended to findings

that increased the maximum term of imprisonment for an

offense. We foreshadowed an answer to this question in

Jones v. United States, 526 U. S. 227, 243, n. 6 (1999), but

did not resolve the issue until Apprendi. There, we identi-

fied a concrete limit on the types of facts that legislatures

may designate as sentencing factors.

In Apprendi, the defendant was sentenced to 12 years’

imprisonment under a New Jersey statute that increased

the maximum term of imprisonment from 10 years to 20

years if the trial judge found that the defendant commit-

ted his crime with racial bias. 530 U. S., at 470. In de-

fending its sentencing scheme, the State of New Jersey

argued that, under McMillan, the legislature could define

racial bias as a sentencing factor to be found by the judge.

We declined to extend McMillan that far. We explained

Cite as: 570 U. S. ____ (2013) 5

Opinion of THOMAS, J.

that there was no “principled basis for treating” a fact

increasing the maximum term of imprisonment differently

than the facts constituting the base offense. 530 U. S., at

476. The historic link between crime and punishment,

instead, led us to conclude that any fact that increased the

prescribed statutory maximum sentence must be an “ele-

ment” of the offense to be found by the jury. Id., at 483,

n. 10, 490. We, thus, found that Apprendi’s sentence

had been unconstitutionally enhanced by the judge’s finding

of racial bias by a preponderance of evidence. Id., at

491–492.

B

While Apprendi only concerned a judicial finding that

increased the statutory maximum, the logic of Apprendi

prompted questions about the continuing vitality, if not

validity, of McMillan’s holding that facts found to increase

the mandatory minimum sentence are sentencing factors

and not elements of the crime. We responded two years

later in Harris v. United States, 536 U. S. 545, where we

considered the same statutory provision and the same

question before us today.

In Harris, the defendant was charged, under §924(c)

(1)(A), with carrying a firearm in the course of committing

a drug trafficking crime. The mandatory minimum sen-

tence based on the jury’s verdict alone was five years, but

the District Court imposed a 7-year mandatory minimum

sentence based on its finding, by a preponderance of evi-

dence, that the defendant also brandished the firearm. As

in this case, Harris challenged his sentence on the ground

that the 7-year mandatory minimum sentence was uncon-

stitutional under Apprendi, even though the judge’s find-

ing did not alter the maximum sentence to which he was

exposed. Harris, supra, at 551.

The Court declined to apply Apprendi to facts that

increased the mandatory minimum sentence but not the

6 ALLEYNE v. UNITED STATES

Opinion of THOMAS, J.

maximum sentence. 536 U. S., at 557. In the Court’s

view, judicial factfinding that increased the mandatory

minimum did not implicate the Sixth Amendment. Be-

cause the jury’s verdict “authorized the judge to impose

the minimum with or without the finding,” ibid., the Court

was of the view that the factual basis for increasing the

minimum sentence was not “ ‘essential’ ” to the defendant’s

punishment. Id., at 560–561 (plurality opinion). Instead,

it merely limited the judge’s “choices within the author-

ized range.” Id., at 567. From this, the Court drew a

distinction between “facts increasing the defendant’s

minimum sentence and facts extending the sentence be-

yond the statutory maximum,” id., at 566. The Court

limited Apprendi’s holding to instances where the factual

finding increases the statutory maximum sentence.

III

Alleyne contends that Harris was wrongly decided

and that it cannot be reconciled with our reasoning in

Apprendi. We agree.

A

The touchstone for determining whether a fact must be

found by a jury beyond a reasonable doubt is whether the

fact constitutes an “element” or “ingredient” of the charged

offense. United States v. O’Brien, 560 U. S. 218, ___ (2010)

(slip op., at 5); Apprendi, supra, at 483, n. 10; J. Archbold,

Pleading and Evidence in Criminal Cases 52 (5th Am. ed.

1846) (hereinafter Archbold). In Apprendi, we held that a

fact is by definition an element of the offense and must be

submitted to the jury if it increases the punishment above

what is otherwise legally prescribed. 530 U. S., at 483,

n. 10. While Harris declined to extend this principle to

facts increasing mandatory minimum sentences, Appren-

di’s definition of “elements” necessarily includes not only

facts that increase the ceiling, but also those that increase

Cite as: 570 U. S. ____ (2013) 7

Opinion of THOMAS, J.

the floor. Both kinds of facts alter the prescribed range of

sentences to which a defendant is exposed and do so in a

manner that aggravates the punishment. 530 U. S., at

483, n. 10; Harris, supra, at 579 (THOMAS, J., dissenting).

Facts that increase the mandatory minimum sentence are

therefore elements and must be submitted to the jury and

found beyond a reasonable doubt.

1

At common law, the relationship between crime and

punishment was clear. As discussed in Apprendi, “[t]he

substantive criminal law tended to be sanction-specific,”

meaning “it prescribed a particular sentence for each

offense.” Langbein, The English Criminal Trial Jury on

the Eve of the French Revolution, in The Trial Jury in

England, France, Germany 1700–1900, p. 36 (A. Schioppa

ed. 1987) (quoted in Apprendi, supra, at 479). The system

left judges with little sentencing discretion: once the facts

of the offense were determined by the jury, the “judge was

meant simply to impose [the prescribed] sentence.” Lang-

bein, supra, at 36–37; see also 3 W. Blackstone, Commen-

taries on the Laws of England 396 (1768) (“THE judgment,

though pronounced or awarded by the judges, is not their

determination or sentence, but the determination and

sentence of the law” (emphasis deleted)). This Court has

recognized that the same was true, in many instances,

early on in this country. United States v. Grayson, 438

U. S. 41, 45 (1978); see, e.g., Commonwealth v. Smith, 1

Mass. 245 (1804) (describing state law that specified a

punishment for larceny of damages three times the value

of the stolen goods). While some early American statutes

provided ranges of permissible sentences, K. Stith & J.

Cabranes, Fear of Judging: Sentencing Guidelines in the

Federal Courts 9 (1998), the ranges themselves were

linked to particular facts constituting the elements of the

crime. E.g., Lacy v. State, 15 Wis. 13 (1862) (discussing

8 ALLEYNE v. UNITED STATES

Opinion of THOMAS, J.

arson statute that provided for a sentence of 7 to 14 years

where the house was occupied at the time of the offense,

but a sentence of 3 to 10 if it was not); Ga. Penal Code

§§4324–4325 (1867) (robbery “by open force or violence”

was punishable by 4 to 20 years’ imprisonment, while

“[r]obbery by intimidation, or without using force and

violence,” was punishable by 2 to 5 years’ imprisonment).

This linkage of facts with particular sentence ranges

(defined by both the minimum and the maximum) reflects

the intimate connection between crime and punishment.

Consistent with this connection between crime and

punishment, various treatises defined “crime” as consist-

ing of every fact which “is in law essential to the punish-

ment sought to be inflicted,” 1 J. Bishop, Criminal Proce-

dure 50 (2d ed. 1872) (hereinafter Bishop), or the whole of

the wrong “to which the law affixes . . . punishment,” id.,

§80, at 51. See also 1 J. Bishop, New Criminal Procedure

§84, p. 49 (4th ed. 1895) (defining crime as “that wrongful

aggregation [of elements] out of which the punishment

proceeds”); Archbold 128 (defining crime to include any

fact that “annexes a higher degree of punishment”). Nu-

merous high courts agreed that this formulation “accu-

rately captured the common-law understanding of what

facts are elements of a crime.” Apprendi, 530 U. S., at

511–512 (THOMAS, J., concurring) (collecting cases). If a

fact was by law essential to the penalty, it was an element

of the offense.

2

From these widely recognized principles followed a well-

established practice of including in the indictment, and

submitting to the jury, every fact that was a basis for

imposing or increasing punishment. While an exhaustive

history need not be recounted here, see id., at 501–509

(THOMAS, J., concurring) (detailing practices of American

courts from the 1840’s onward), a few particularly salient

Cite as: 570 U. S. ____ (2013) 9

Opinion of THOMAS, J.

examples illustrate the point. In Hope v. Commonwealth,

50 Mass. 134 (1845), the defendant was indicted for (and

convicted of) larceny. The larceny statute established two

levels of sentencing based on whether the value of the

stolen property exceeded $100. Because punishment

varied with value, the state high court found that value

was an element of the offense:

“Our statutes, it will be remembered, prescribe the

punishment for larceny, with reference to the value of

the property stolen; and for this reason, as well as be-

cause it is in conformity with long established prac-

tice, the court are of [the] opinion that the value of the

property alleged to be stolen must be set forth in the

indictment.” Id., at 137.

Numerous other contemporaneous court decisions reflect

this same understanding. See, e.g., Ritchey v. State, 7

Blackf. 168, 169 (Ind. 1844) (holding that indictment for

arson must allege value of property destroyed, because

statute set punishment based on value); United States v.

Fisher, 25 F. Cas. 1086 (No. 15,102) (CC Ohio 1849)

(McLean, J.) (“A carrier of the mail is subject to a higher

penalty where he steals a letter out of the mail, which

contains an article of value. And when this offense is

committed, the indictment must allege the letter con-

tained an article of value, which aggravates the offense

and incurs a higher penalty”).

A number of contemporaneous treatises similarly took

the view that a fact that increased punishment must be

charged in the indictment. As one 19th-century commen-

tator explained:

“Where a statute annexes a higher degree of punish-

ment to a common-law felony, if committed under

particular circumstances, an indictment for the offence,

in order to bring the defendant within that higher de-

gree of punishment, must expressly charge it to have

10 ALLEYNE v. UNITED STATES

Opinion of THOMAS, J.

Opinion of the Court

been committed under those circumstances, and must

state the circumstances with certainty and precision.

[2 M. Hale, Pleas of the Crown *170].” Archbold 51

(15th ed. 1862).

Another explained that “the indictment must contain an

allegation of every fact which is legally essential to the

punishment to be inflicted.” Bishop §81, at 51. This rule

“enabled [the defendant] to determine the species of of-

fence” with which he was charged “in order that he may

prepare his defence accordingly . . . and that there may be

no doubt as to the judgment which should be given, if the

defendant be convicted.” Archbold 44 (emphasis added).

As the Court noted in Apprendi, “[t]he defendant’s ability

to predict with certainty the judgment from the face of the

felony indictment flowed from the invariable linkage of

punishment with crime.” 530 U. S., at 478.

B

Consistent with common-law and early American prac-

tice, Apprendi concluded that any “facts that increase the

prescribed range of penalties to which a criminal defend-

ant is exposed” are elements of the crime. Id., at 490

(internal quotation marks omitted); id., at 483, n. 10

(“[F]acts that expose a defendant to a punishment greater

than that otherwise legally prescribed were by definition

‘elements’ of a separate legal offense”).1 We held that the

Sixth Amendment provides defendants with the right to

have a jury find those facts beyond a reasonable doubt.

Id., at 484. While Harris limited Apprendi to facts in-

creasing the statutory maximum, the principle applied in

Apprendi applies with equal force to facts increasing the

——————

1 In Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U. S. 224 (1998), we

recognized a narrow exception to this general rule for the fact of a prior

conviction. Because the parties do not contest that decision’s vitality,

we do not revisit it for purposes of our decision today.

Cite as: 570 U. S. ____ (2013) 11

Opinion of THOMAS, J.

Opinion of the Court

mandatory minimum.

It is indisputable that a fact triggering a mandatory

minimum alters the prescribed range of sentences to

which a criminal defendant is exposed. Apprendi, supra,

at 490; Harris, 536 U. S., at 575, 582 (THOMAS, J., dissent-

ing). But for a finding of brandishing, the penalty is five

years to life in prison; with a finding of brandishing, the

penalty becomes seven years to life. Just as the maximum

of life marks the outer boundary of the range, so seven

years marks its floor. And because the legally prescribed

range is the penalty affixed to the crime, infra, this page,

it follows that a fact increasing either end of the range

produces a new penalty and constitutes an ingredient of

the offense. Apprendi, supra, at 501 (THOMAS, J., concur-

ring); see also Bishop §598, at 360–361 (if “a statute pre-

scribes a particular punishment to be inflicted on those

who commit it under special circumstances which it men-

tions, or with particular aggravations,” then those special

circumstances must be specified in the indictment (em-

phasis added)); 1 F. Wharton, Criminal Law §371, p. 291

(rev. 7th ed. 1874) (similar).

It is impossible to dissociate the floor of a sentencing

range from the penalty affixed to the crime. See Harris,

supra, at 569 (BREYER, J., concurring in part and concur-

ring in judgment) (facts increasing the minimum and facts

increasing the maximum cannot be distinguished “in

terms of logic”). Indeed, criminal statutes have long speci-

fied both the floor and ceiling of sentence ranges, which is

evidence that both define the legally prescribed penalty.

See, e.g., supra, at 7–8; N. Y. Penal Code §§231–232, p. 70

(1882) (punishment for first-degree robbery was 10 to 20

years’ imprisonment; second-degree robbery was 5 to 15

years); Va. Code ch. 192, §§1–2, p. 787 (2d ed. 1860) (arson

committed at night was punishable by 5 to 10 years; arson

committed during the day was 3 to 10 years). This histori-

cal practice allowed those who violated the law to know, ex

12 ALLEYNE v. UNITED STATES

Opinion of THOMAS, J.

Opinion of the Court

ante, the contours of the penalty that the legislature af-

fixed to the crime—and comports with the obvious truth

that the floor of a mandatory range is as relevant to

wrongdoers as the ceiling. A fact that increases a sen-

tencing floor, thus, forms an essential ingredient of the

offense.

Moreover, it is impossible to dispute that facts increas-

ing the legally prescribed floor aggravate the punishment.

Harris, supra, at 579 (THOMAS, J., dissenting); O’Brien,

560 U. S., at ___ (THOMAS, J., concurring in judgment)

(slip op., at 2). Elevating the low-end of a sentenc-

ing range heightens the loss of liberty associated with

the crime: the defendant’s “expected punishment has

increased as a result of the narrowed range” and “the prose-

cution is empowered, by invoking the mandatory mini-

mum, to require the judge to impose a higher punishment

than he might wish.” Apprendi, supra, at 522 (THOMAS,

J., concurring). Why else would Congress link an in-

creased mandatory minimum to a particular aggravating

fact other than to heighten the consequences for that

behavior? See McMillan, 477 U. S., at 88, 89 (twice noting

that a mandatory minimum “ ‘ups the ante’ ” for a criminal

defendant); Harris, supra, at 580 (THOMAS, J., dissenting).

This reality demonstrates that the core crime and the fact

triggering the mandatory minimum sentence together

constitute a new, aggravated crime, each element of which

must be submitted to the jury.2

——————

2 Juries must find any facts that increase either the statutory maxi-

mum or minimum because the Sixth Amendment applies where a

finding of fact both alters the legally prescribed range and does so in a

way that aggravates the penalty. Importantly, this is distinct from

factfinding used to guide judicial discretion in selecting a punishment

“within limits fixed by law.” Williams v. New York, 337 U. S. 241, 246

(1949). While such findings of fact may lead judges to select sentences

that are more severe than the ones they would have selected without

those facts, the Sixth Amendment does not govern that element of

sentencing. Infra, at 15–17, and n. 6.

Cite as: 570 U. S. ____ (2013) 13

Opinion of THOMAS, J.

Opinion of the Court

Defining facts that increase a mandatory statutory

minimum to be part of the substantive offense enables the

defendant to predict the legally applicable penalty from

the face of the indictment. See Apprendi, 530 U. S., at

478–479. It also preserves the historic role of the jury as

an intermediary between the State and criminal defend-

ants. See United States v. Gaudin, 515 U. S., at 510–511

(“This right was designed ‘to guard against a spirit of

oppression and tyranny on the part of rulers,’ and ‘was

from very early times insisted on by our ancestors in the

parent country, as the great bulwark of their civil and

political liberties’ ” (quoting 2 J. Story, Commentaries on

the Constitution of the United States §§1779, 1780, pp.

540–541 (4th ed. 1873))); Williams v. Florida, 399 U. S. 78,

100 (1970) (“[T]he essential feature of a jury obviously lies

in [its] interposition between the accused and his ac-

cuser”); Duncan v. Louisiana, 391 U. S. 145, 155 (1968) (“A

right to jury trial is granted to criminal defendants in

order to prevent oppression by the Government”).

In adopting a contrary conclusion, Harris relied on the

fact that the 7-year minimum sentence could have been

imposed with or without a judicial finding of brandishing,

because the jury’s finding already authorized a sentence of

five years to life. 536 U. S., at 561. The dissent repeats

this argument today. See post, at 5 (opinion of ROBERTS,

C. J.) (“The jury’s verdict authorized the judge to impose

the precise sentence he imposed for the precise factual

reason he imposed it”). While undoubtedly true, this fact

is beside the point.3

——————

3 Apprendi rejected an argument similar to the one advanced in Har-

ris. In Apprendi, the State of New Jersey argued that increasing the

defendant’s statutory maximum on the challenged count did not violate

the Sixth Amendment because “the judge could have imposed consecu-

tive sentences,” in conjunction with other counts, to produce the sen-

tence that the defendant actually received on the count at issue. 530

U. S., at 474. We found that this possibility did not preclude a Sixth

14 ALLEYNE v. UNITED STATES

Opinion of THOMAS, J.

Opinion of the Court

As noted, the essential Sixth Amendment inquiry is

whether a fact is an element of the crime. When a finding

of fact alters the legally prescribed punishment so as to

aggravate it, the fact necessarily forms a constituent part

of a new offense and must be submitted to the jury. It is

no answer to say that the defendant could have received

the same sentence with or without that fact. It is obvious,

for example, that a defendant could not be convicted and

sentenced for assault, if the jury only finds the facts for

larceny, even if the punishments prescribed for each crime

are identical. One reason is that each crime has different

elements and a defendant can be convicted only if the jury

has found each element of the crime of conviction.

Similarly, because the fact of brandishing aggravates

the legally prescribed range of allowable sentences, it

constitutes an element of a separate, aggravated offense

that must be found by the jury, regardless of what sen-

tence the defendant might have received if a different

range had been applicable. Indeed, if a judge were to find

a fact that increased the statutory maximum sentence,

such a finding would violate the Sixth Amendment, even if

the defendant ultimately received a sentence falling within

the original sentencing range (i.e., the range applicable

without that aggravating fact). Cf. Hobbs v. State, 44 Tex.

353 (1875) (reversing conviction where the defendant was

indicted for a crime punishable by 2 to 5 years and sen-

tenced to 3 years because the trial court improperly in-

structed the jury to sentence the defendant between 2 to

10 years if it found a particular aggravating fact); State v.

Callahan, 109 La. 946, 33 So. 931 (1903) (finding ex post

facto violation where a newly enacted law increased the

range of punishment, even though defendant was sen-

tenced within the range established by the prior law).4

——————

Amendment violation. Ibid.

4 Many criminal statutes allow for this possibility. For example, an

Cite as: 570 U. S. ____ (2013) 15

Opinion of THOMAS, J.

Opinion of the Court

The essential point is that the aggravating fact produced a

higher range, which, in turn, conclusively indicates that

the fact is an element of a distinct and aggravated crime.

It must, therefore, be submitted to the jury and found

beyond a reasonable doubt.

Because there is no basis in principle or logic to dis-

tinguish facts that raise the maximum from those that

increase the minimum, Harris was inconsistent with Ap-

prendi. It is, accordingly, overruled.5

C

In holding that facts that increase mandatory minimum

sentences must be submitted to the jury, we take care to

note what our holding does not entail. Our ruling today

does not mean that any fact that influences judicial discre-

tion must be found by a jury. We have long recognized

that broad sentencing discretion, informed by judicial

factfinding, does not violate the Sixth Amendment. See,

e.g., Dillon v. United States, 560 U. S. ___, ___ (2010) (slip

op., at 11) (“[W]ithin established limits[,] . . . the exercise

of [sentencing] discretion does not contravene the Sixth

——————

Illinois law provides for a sentence of 2 to 10 years’ imprisonment for

intimidation, Ill. Comp. Stat., ch. 720, §5/12–6(b) (West 2010), and 3 to

14 years for aggravated intimidation, §5/12–6.2(b). The elements of

aggravated intimidation include all the elements of intimidation plus

one enumerated aggravating fact. Under this statute, if a jury found

each element of intimidation, but the judge purported to find a fact that

elevated the offense to aggravated intimidation, the Sixth Amendment

would most certainly be violated, even if the defendant received a

sentence that fell within both ranges. See also La. Rev. Stat. Ann.

§§14:51, 14:52 (West 2007) (sentencing range for simple arson is 2 to 15

years; sentencing range for aggravated arson is 6 to 20 years); Mont.

Code Ann. §§45–5–302(2), 5–303(2) (2011) (sentencing range for kid-

napping is 2 to 10 years, but 2 to life for aggravated kidnapping).

5 The force of stare decisis is at its nadir in cases concerning proce-

dural rules that implicate fundamental constitutional protections.

Because Harris is irreconcilable with the reasoning of Apprendi and the

original meaning of the Sixth Amendment, we follow the latter.

16 ALLEYNE v. UNITED STATES

Opinion of THOMAS, J.

Opinion of the Court

Amendment even if it is informed by judge-found facts”

(emphasis deleted and internal quotation marks omitted));

Apprendi, 530 U. S., at 481 (“[N]othing in this history

suggests that it is impermissible for judges to exercise

discretion—taking into consideration various factors

relating both to offense and offender—in imposing a judg-

ment within the range prescribed by statute”).6 This

position has firm historical roots as well. As Bishop

explained:

“[W]ithin the limits of any discretion as to the pun-

ishment which the law may have allowed, the judge,

when he pronounces sentence, may suffer his discre-

tion to be influenced by matter shown in aggravation

or mitigation, not covered by the allegations of the in-

dictment.” Bishop §85, at 54.

“[E]stablishing what punishment is available by law and

setting a specific punishment within the bounds that the

law has prescribed are two different things.” Apprendi,

supra, at 519 (THOMAS, J., concurring). Our decision

today is wholly consistent with the broad discretion of

judges to select a sentence within the range authorized by

law.

IV

Here, the sentencing range supported by the jury’s

verdict was five years’ imprisonment to life. The District

——————

6 See also United States v. Tucker, 404 U. S. 443, 446 (1972) (judges

may exercise sentencing discretion through “an inquiry broad in scope,

largely unlimited either as to the kind of information [they] may

consider, or the source from which it may come”); Williams v. New

York, 337 U. S. 241, 246 (1949) (“[B]oth before and since the American

colonies became a nation, courts in this country and in England prac-

ticed a policy under which a sentencing judge could exercise a wide

discretion in the sources and types of evidence used to assist him in

determining the kind and extent of punishment to be imposed within

limits fixed by law”).

Cite as: 570 U. S. ____ (2013) 17

Opinion of THOMAS, J.

Opinion of the Court

Court imposed the 7-year mandatory minimum sentence

based on its finding by a preponderance of evidence that

the firearm was “brandished.” Because the finding of

brandishing increased the penalty to which the defendant

was subjected, it was an element, which had to be found

by the jury beyond a reasonable doubt. The judge, rather

than the jury, found brandishing, thus violating petition-

er’s Sixth Amendment rights.

Accordingly, we vacate the Fourth Circuit’s judgment

with respect to Alleyne’s sentence on the §924(c)(1)(A)

conviction and remand the case for resentencing con-

sistent with the jury’s verdict.

It is so ordered.

Cite as: 570 U. S. ____ (2013) 1

SOTOMAYOR, J., concurring

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

_________________

No. 11–9335

_________________

ALLEN RYAN ALLEYNE, PETITIONER v.

UNITED STATES

ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF

APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

[June 17, 2013]

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR, with whom JUSTICE GINSBURG

and JUSTICE KAGAN join, concurring.

I join the opinion of the Court, which persuasively ex-

plains why Harris v. United States, 536 U. S. 545 (2002),

and McMillan v. Pennsylvania, 477 U. S. 79 (1986), were

wrongly decided. Under the reasoning of our decision in

Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U. S. 466 (2000), and the

original meaning of the Sixth Amendment, facts that

increase the statutory minimum sentence (no less than

facts that increase the statutory maximum sentence) are

elements of the offense that must be found by a jury and

proved beyond a reasonable doubt. Ante, at 1.

Of course, under our doctrine of stare decisis, establish-

ing that a decision was wrong does not, without more,

justify overruling it. While stare decisis is not an “inexo-

rable command,” Hohn v. United States, 524 U. S. 236, 251

(1998) (internal quotation marks omitted), it is “a basic

self-governing principle within the Judicial Branch, which

is entrusted with the sensitive and difficult task of fash-

ioning and preserving a jurisprudential system that is not

based upon ‘an arbitrary discretion,’ ” Patterson v. McLean

Credit Union, 491 U. S. 164, 172 (1989) (quoting The

Federalist, No. 78, p. 490 (H. Lodge ed. 1888) (A. Hamil-

ton)). We generally adhere to our prior decisions, even if

we question their soundness, because doing so “promotes

2 ALLEYNE v. UNITED STATES

SOTOMAYOR, J., concurring

the evenhanded, predictable, and consistent development

of legal principles, fosters reliance on judicial decisions,

and contributes to the actual and perceived integrity of the

judicial process.” Payne v. Tennessee, 501 U. S. 808, 827

(1991). To protect these important values, we require a

“ ‘ “special justification” ’ ” when departing from precedent.

Dickerson v. United States, 530 U. S. 428, 443 (2000).

A special justification is present here. As an initial

matter, when procedural rules are at issue that do not

govern primary conduct and do not implicate the reliance

interests of private parties, the force of stare decisis is

reduced. See United States v. Gaudin, 515 U. S. 506, 521

(1995); Payne, 501 U. S., at 828. And any reliance interest

that the Federal Government and state governments

might have is particularly minimal here because prosecu-

tors are perfectly able to “charge facts upon which a man-

datory minimum sentence is based in the indictment and

prove them to a jury.” Harris, 536 U. S., at 581 (THOMAS,

J., dissenting). Indeed, even with Harris in place, prose-

cutors already sometimes charge such facts and seek to

prove them to a jury. See Brief for National Association of

Criminal Defense Lawyers et al. as Amici Curiae 26. That

is precisely what happened here, where the verdict form

allowed the jury to find whether petitioner had brandished

a firearm yet the jury declined to make such a finding.

Ante, at 2.

In this context, stare decisis does not compel adherence

to a decision whose “underpinnings” have been “eroded” by

subsequent developments of constitutional law. Gaudin,

515 U. S., at 521. In rejecting a constitutional challenge to

a state statute that increased a defendant’s minimum

sentence based on judicial factfinding, McMillan relied on

a distinction between “elements” and “sentencing factors.”

477 U. S., at 86. That distinction was undermined by

Apprendi, where we held that a legislature may not “re-

move from the jury the assessment of facts that increase

Cite as: 570 U. S. ____ (2013) 3

SOTOMAYOR, J., concurring

the prescribed range of penalties to which a criminal

defendant is exposed.” 530 U. S., at 490 (internal quota-

tion marks omitted).

In Harris, we squarely confronted the question whether

“McMillan stands after Apprendi.” 536 U. S., at 550. Five

Members of the Court recognized that the cases were in

fact incompatible. See id., at 569 (BREYER, J., concurring

in part and concurring in judgment); id., at 572, 583

(THOMAS, J., dissenting) (“[O]nly a minority of the Court

embrac[es] the distinction between McMillan and Apprendi

that forms the basis of today’s holding”). In the control-

ling opinion, JUSTICE BREYER nevertheless declined to

apply Apprendi to mandatory minimums because, though

he found no way to distinguish sentencing floors from

sentencing ceilings, he could not “yet accept” Apprendi

itself. 536 U. S., at 569; see also post, at 1 (BREYER, J.,

concurring in part and concurring in judgment).

We have said that a decision may be “of questionable

precedential value” when “a majority of the Court expressly

disagreed with the rationale of [a] plurality.” Seminole

Tribe of Fla. v. Florida, 517 U. S. 44, 66 (1996). And

Harris has stood on especially weak ground because its

vitality depended upon the possibility that the Court

might retreat from Apprendi. See Harris, 536 U. S., at

569–570 (opinion of BREYER, J.). That has not happened.

Instead, while individual Members of this Court have

continued to question Apprendi, see post, at 1–2 (opinion

of BREYER, J.); post, at 1–2 (ALITO, J., dissenting), its rule

has become even more firmly rooted in the Court’s Sixth

Amendment jurisprudence in the decade since Harris. We

have applied Apprendi to strike down mandatory sentenc-

ing systems at the state and federal levels. See Cunning-

ham v. California, 549 U. S. 270 (2007); United States v.

Booker, 543 U. S. 220 (2005); Blakely v. Washington, 542

U. S. 296 (2004). And just last Term, we recognized that

Apprendi’s reasoning extends to criminal fines. See

4 ALLEYNE v. UNITED STATES

SOTOMAYOR, J., concurring

Southern Union Co. v. United States, 567 U. S. ___ (2012).

As a result of these decisions, Harris has become even

more of an outlier. For that reason, I agree that it is

appropriate for the Court to “overrule Harris and to apply

Apprendi’s basic jury-determination rule to mandatory

minimum sentences” in order to “erase th[is] anomaly” in

our case law. Post, at 2–3 (opinion of BREYER, J.). I do not

suggest that every single factor that supports the overrul-

ing of precedent is present here. Post, at 3, n. * (ALITO, J.,

dissenting). But particularly in a case where the reliance

interests are so minimal, and the reliance interests of

private parties are nonexistent, stare decisis cannot excuse

a refusal to bring “coherence and consistency,” Patterson,

491 U. S., at 174, to our Sixth Amendment law.

If any doubt remained, our decision in Ring v. Arizona,

536 U. S. 584 (2002), should remove it. Ring considered

an Apprendi challenge to Arizona’s capital sentencing

system. There, as here, the government urged us to ad-

here to a pre-Apprendi decision upholding that scheme.

See Walton v. Arizona, 497 U. S. 639 (1990). And there, as

here, we resisted that plea. Ring, 536 U. S., at 609. This

case differs in only one respect: Our post-Apprendi consid-

eration of the issue in Harris. But for the reasons given,

Harris in no way strengthens the force of stare decisis in

this case. With Apprendi now firmly rooted in our juris-

prudence, the Court simply gives effect to what five Mem-

bers of the Court recognized in Harris: “[McMillan] and

Apprendi are irreconcilable; our Sixth Amendment juris-

prudence cannot be home to both.” 536 U. S., at 609.

JUSTICE ALITO is therefore mistaken when he suggests

that the Court overrules Harris because “there are cur-

rently five Justices willing to vote to” do so. Post, at 3, n.

*. No doubt, it would be illegitimate to overrule a prece-

dent simply because the Court’s current membership

disagrees with it. But that is not a plausible account of

the decision today. The Court overrules McMillan and

Cite as: 570 U. S. ____ (2013) 5

SOTOMAYOR, J., concurring

Harris because the reasoning of those decisions has been

thoroughly undermined by intervening decisions and

because no significant reliance interests are at stake that

might justify adhering to their result. Likewise, JUSTICE

ALITO exaggerates when he suggests that this case creates

an important “precedent about precedent.” Post, at 2.

Rarely will a claim for stare decisis be as weak as it is

here, where a constitutional rule of criminal procedure is

at issue that a majority of the Court has previously recog-

nized is incompatible with our broader jurisprudence.

And finally, JUSTICE ALITO’s contention that Apprendi and

Harris stand on equal footing for stare decisis purposes,

post, at 1–2, 3–4, n. *, is simply inconsistent with our last

decade of Sixth Amendment jurisprudence.

Because I believe that the Court’s decision to apply

Apprendi to mandatory minimums is consistent with stare

decisis principles, I join the opinion of the Court.

Cite as: 570 U. S. ____ (2013) 1

Opinion of BREYER, J.

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

_________________

No. 11–9335

_________________

ALLEN RYAN ALLEYNE, PETITIONER v.

UNITED STATES

ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF

APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

[June 17, 2013]

JUSTICE BREYER, concurring in part and concurring in

the judgment.

Eleven years ago, in Harris v. United States, 536 U. S.

545 (2002), I wrote that “I cannot easily distinguish Ap-

prendi v. New Jersey, 530 U. S. 466 (2000), from this case

in terms of logic.” Id., at 569 (opinion concurring in part

and concurring in judgment). I nonetheless accepted

Harris’ holding because I could “[n]ot yet accept [Ap-

prendi’s] rule.” 536 U. S., at 569. I continue to disagree

with Apprendi. See 536 U. S., at 569–570; United States v.

Booker, 543 U. S. 220, 326 (2005) (opinion dissenting in

part); Blakely v. Washington, 542 U. S. 296, 328 (2004)

(dissenting opinion); Apprendi, supra, at 555 (same). But

Apprendi has now defined the relevant legal regime for an

additional decade. And, in my view, the law should no

longer tolerate the anomaly that the Apprendi/Harris

distinction creates.

The Court’s basic error in Apprendi, I believe, was its

failure to recognize the law’s traditional distinction be-

tween elements of a crime (facts constituting the crime,

typically for the jury to determine) and sentencing facts

(facts affecting the sentence, often concerning, e.g., the

manner in which the offender committed the crime, and

typically for the judge to determine). The early historical

references that this Court’s opinions have set forth in

2 ALLEYNE v. UNITED STATES

Opinion of BREYER, J.

favor of Apprendi refer to offense elements, not to sentenc-

ing facts. Thus, when Justice Story wrote that the Sixth

Amendment’s guarantee of trial by jury offered “ ‘securit[y]

against the prejudices of judges,’ ” post, at 4 (ROBERTS,

C. J., dissenting) (quoting Commentaries on the Consti-

tution of the United States §924, p. 657 (Abr. 1833)), he

was likely referring to elements of a crime; and the best

answer to JUSTICE SCALIA’s implicit question in Apprendi—

what, exactly, does the “right to trial by jury” guaran-

tee?—is that it guarantees a jury’s determination of facts

that constitute the elements of a crime. 530 U. S., at 498–

499 (concurring opinion).

Although I have set forth these minority views be-

fore, see Booker, supra, at 326 (opinion dissenting in part);

Blakely, supra, at 328 (dissenting opinion); Apprendi, su-

pra, at 555 (same), I repeat this point now to make clear

why I cannot accept the dissent’s characterization of the

Sixth Amendment as simply seeking to prevent “judicial

overreaching” when sentencing facts are at issue, post,

at 4. At the very least, the Amendment seeks to protect

defendants against “the wishes and opinions of the gov-

ernment” as well. Ibid. (quoting Story, supra, §924, at

657). And, that being so, it seems to me highly anomalous

to read Apprendi as insisting that juries find sentencing

facts that permit a judge to impose a higher sentence

while not insisting that juries find sentencing facts that

require a judge to impose a higher sentence. See Harris,

supra, at 569–570 (opinion of BREYER, J.).

To overrule Harris and to apply Apprendi’s basic jury-

determination rule to mandatory minimum sentences

would erase that anomaly. Where a maximum sentence is

at issue, Apprendi means that a judge who wishes to im-

pose a higher sentence cannot do so unless a jury finds the

requisite statutory factual predicate. Where a manda-

tory minimum sentence is at issue, application of Apprendi

Cite as: 570 U. S. ____ (2013) 3

Opinion of BREYER, J.

would mean that the government cannot force a judge who

does not wish to impose a higher sentence to do so unless

a jury finds the requisite statutory factual predicate. In

both instances the matter concerns higher sentences; in

both instances factfinding must trigger the increase; in both

instances jury-based factfinding would act as a check: in

the first instance, against a sentencing judge wrongly

imposing the higher sentence that the judge believes is

appropriate, and in the second instance, against a sentenc-

ing judge wrongly being required to impose the higher

sentence that the judge believes is inappropriate.

While Harris has been the law for 11 years, Apprendi

has been the law for even longer; and I think the time has

come to end this anomaly in Apprendi’s application. Con-

sequently, I vote to overrule Harris. I join Parts I, III–B,

III–C, and IV of the Court’s opinion and concur in its

judgment.

Cite as: 570 U. S. ____ (2013) 1

ROBERTS, C. J., dissenting

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

_________________

No. 11–9335

_________________

ALLEN RYAN ALLEYNE, PETITIONER v.

UNITED STATES

ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF

APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

[June 17, 2013]

CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS, with whom JUSTICE SCALIA and

JUSTICE KENNEDY join, dissenting.

Suppose a jury convicts a defendant of a crime carrying

a sentence of five to ten years. And suppose the judge says

he would sentence the defendant to five years, but because

he finds that the defendant used a gun during the crime,

he is going to add two years and sentence him to seven.

No one thinks that this violates the defendant’s right to

a jury trial in any way.

Now suppose the legislature says that two years should

be added to the five year minimum, if the judge finds that

the defendant used a gun during the crime. Such a provi-

sion affects the role of the judge—limiting his discretion—

but has no effect on the role of the jury. And because it

does not affect the jury’s role, it does not violate the jury

trial guarantee of the Sixth Amendment.

The Framers envisioned the Sixth Amendment as a pro-

tection for defendants from the power of the Government.

The Court transforms it into a protection for judges from

the power of the legislature. For that reason, I respect-

fully dissent.

I

In a steady stream of cases decided over the last 15

years, this Court has sought to identify the historical

2 ALLEYNE v. UNITED STATES

ROBERTS, C. J., dissenting

understanding of the Sixth Amendment jury trial right

and determine how that understanding applies to modern

sentencing practice. Our key sources in this task have

been 19th-century treatises and common law cases identi-

fying which facts qualified as “elements” of a crime, and

therefore had to be alleged in the indictment and proved to

a jury beyond a reasonable doubt. See, e.g., Apprendi v.

New Jersey, 530 U. S. 466, 476–483, 489–490, n. 15 (2000)

(collecting sources); id., at 501–518 (THOMAS, J., concur-

ring) (same). With remarkable uniformity, those author-

ities provided that an element was “whatever is in law

essential to the punishment sought to be inflicted.” 1 J.

Bishop, Criminal Procedure 50 (2d ed. 1872); see also

Apprendi, supra, at 489, n. 15 (“ ‘[T]he indictment must

contain an allegation of every fact which is legally essen-

tial to the punishment to be inflicted’ ” (quoting United

States v. Reese, 92 U. S. 214, 232 (1876) (Clifford, J., dis-

senting))); 1 Bishop, supra, §87, at 55 (an indictment must

include “any particular fact which the law makes essential

to the punishment”).

Judging that this common law rule best reflects what

the Framers understood the Sixth Amendment jury right

to protect, we have struck down sentencing schemes that

were inconsistent with the rule. In Apprendi, for example,

the defendant pleaded guilty to a crime that carried a

maximum sentence of ten years. After his plea, however,

the trial judge determined that the defendant had commit-

ted the crime with a biased purpose. Under a New Jersey

law, that finding allowed the judge to impose up to ten

additional years in prison. Exercising that authority, the

judge sentenced the defendant to 12 years. 530 U. S., at

469–471.

Because the sentence was two years longer than would

have been possible without the finding of bias, that find-

ing was “essential to the punishment” imposed. 1 Bishop,

supra, at 50; see Apprendi, 530 U. S., at 491–492. Thus,

Cite as: 570 U. S. ____ (2013) 3

ROBERTS, C. J., dissenting

in line with the common law rule, we held the New Jersey

procedure unconstitutional. Id., at 497.

Subsequent cases have worked out how this principle

applies in other contexts, such as capital sentencing re-

gimes, state and federal sentencing guidelines, or criminal

fines. See Ring v. Arizona, 536 U. S. 584 (2002); Blakely v.

Washington, 542 U. S. 296 (2004); United States v. Booker,

543 U. S. 220 (2005); Southern Union Co. v. United

States, 567 U. S. ___ (2012). Through all of them, we have

adhered to the rule, rooted in the common law under-

standing described above, that we laid down in Apprendi:

“Other than the fact of a prior conviction, any fact that

increases the penalty for a crime beyond the prescribed

statutory maximum must be submitted to a jury, and

proved beyond a reasonable doubt.” 530 U. S., at 490; see

Blakely, supra, at 301 (quoting above statement); Booker,

supra, at 231 (same); Southern Union Co., supra, at ___

(slip op., at 3) (same); see also Ring, supra, at 588–589

(Sixth Amendment “does not permit a defendant to be

‘expose[d] . . . to a penalty exceeding the maximum he

would receive if punished according to the facts reflected

in the jury verdict alone’ ” (quoting Apprendi, supra, at

483; alterations in original).

We have embraced this 19th-century common law rule

based not only on a judgment that it reflects the under-

standing in place when the Sixth Amendment was rati-

fied, but also on the “need to give intelligible content to the

right of jury trial.” Blakely, supra, at 305. As JUSTICE

SCALIA wrote in Apprendi, it is unclear “what the right to

trial by jury does guarantee if . . . it does not guarantee . . .

the right to have a jury determine those facts that deter-

mine the maximum sentence the law allows.” 530 U. S., at

498–499 (concurring opinion).

After all, if a judge’s factfinding could authorize a sen-

tence beyond that allowed by the jury’s verdict alone, the

jury trial would be “a mere preliminary to a judicial inqui-

4 ALLEYNE v. UNITED STATES

ROBERTS, C. J., dissenting

sition into the facts of the crime the State actually seeks to

punish.” Blakely, supra, at 306–307. The Framers clearly

envisioned a more robust role for the jury. They appreci-

ated the danger inherent in allowing “justices . . . named

by the crown” to “imprison, dispatch, or exile any man that

was obnoxious to the government, by an instant declara-

tion, that such is their will and pleasure.” 4 W. Black-

stone, Commentaries on the Laws of England 343 (1769).

To guard against this “violence and partiality of judges

appointed by the crown,” the common law “wisely placed

th[e] strong . . . barrier, of . . . trial by jury, between the

liberties of the people, and the prerogative of the crown.”

Ibid. The Sixth Amendment therefore provided for trial

by jury as a “double security, against the prejudices of

judges, who may partake of the wishes and opinions of the

government, and against the passions of the multitude,

who may demand their victim with a clamorous precipi-

tancy.” J. Story, Commentaries on the Constitution of the

United States §924, p. 657 (Abr. 1833); see also The Fed-

eralist No. 83, p. 499 (C. Rossiter ed. 1961) (A. Hamilton)

(discussing criminal jury trial as a protection against

“judicial despotism”). Our holdings that a judge may not

sentence a defendant to more than the jury has authorized

properly preserve the jury right as a guard against judicial

overreaching.

II

There is no such risk of judicial overreaching here.

Under 18 U. S. C. §924(c)(1)(A)(i), the jury’s verdict fully

authorized the judge to impose a sentence of anywhere

from five years to life in prison. No additional finding of

fact was “essential” to any punishment within the range.

After rendering the verdict, the jury’s role was completed,

it was discharged, and the judge began the process of

determining where within that range to set Alleyne’s

sentence.

Cite as: 570 U. S. ____ (2013) 5

ROBERTS, C. J., dissenting

Everyone agrees that in making that determination, the

judge was free to consider any relevant facts about the of-

fense and offender, including facts not found by the jury

beyond a reasonable doubt.

“[B]oth before and since the American colonies became

a nation, courts . . . practiced a policy under which a

sentencing judge could exercise a wide discretion in the

sources and types of evidence used to assist him in

determining the kind and extent of punishment to be

imposed within limits fixed by law.” Williams v. New

York, 337 U. S. 241, 246 (1949).

As Apprendi itself recognized, “nothing in this history

suggests that it is impermissible for judges to exercise

discretion—taking into consideration various factors

relating both to offense and offender—in imposing a judg-

ment within the range prescribed by statute.” 530 U. S.,

at 481 (emphasis deleted); see also Dillon v. United States,

560 U. S. __, __ (2010) (slip op., at 11). And the majority

does not dispute the point. Ante, at 15 (“Our ruling today

does not mean that any fact that influences judicial discre-

tion must be found by a jury.”). Thus, under the majority’s

rule, in the absence of a statutory mandatory minimum,

there would have been no constitutional problem had the

judge, exercising the discretion given him by the jury’s

verdict, decided that seven years in prison was the appro-

priate penalty for the crime because of his finding that the

firearm had been brandished during the offense.

In my view, that is enough to resolve this case. The

jury’s verdict authorized the judge to impose the precise

sentence he imposed for the precise factual reason he

imposed it. As we have recognized twice before, the Sixth

Amendment demands nothing more. See Harris v. United

States, 536 U. S. 545, 568–569 (2002); McMillan v. Penn-

sylvania, 477 U. S. 79, 93 (1986).

6 ALLEYNE v. UNITED STATES

ROBERTS, C. J., dissenting

III

This approach is entirely consistent with Apprendi. As

I have explained, Apprendi’s constraint on the normal

legislative control of criminal procedure draws its legiti-

macy from two primary principles: (1) common law under-

standings of the “elements” of a crime, and (2) the need to

preserve the jury as a “strong barrier” between defendants

and the State. Neither of those principles supports the

rule the majority adopts today.

First, there is no body of historical evidence supporting

today’s new rule. The majority does not identify a single

case holding that a fact affecting only the sentencing floor

qualified as an element or had to be found by a jury, nor

does it point to any treatise language to that effect. Ante,

at 8–10. To be sure, the relatively recent vintage of man-

datory minimum sentencing enhancements means that

few, if any, 19th-century courts would have encountered

such a fact pattern. So I do not mean to suggest that

the absence of historical condemnation of the practice con-

clusively establishes its constitutionality today. But given

that Apprendi’s rule rests heavily on affirmative historical

evidence about the practices to which we have previously

applied it, the lack of such evidence on statutory mini-

mums is a good reason not to extend it here.

Nor does the majority’s extension of Apprendi do any-

thing to preserve the role of the jury as a safeguard be-

tween the defendant and the State. That is because even

if a jury does not find that the firearm was brandished,

a judge can do so and impose a harsher sentence because

of his finding, so long as that sentence remains under the

statutory maximum. The question here is about the power

of judges, not juries. Under the rule in place until today,

a legislature could tell judges that certain facts carried

certain weight, and require the judge to devise a sentence

based on that weight—so long as the sentence remained

within the range authorized by the jury. Now, in the

Cite as: 570 U. S. ____ (2013) 7

ROBERTS, C. J., dissenting

name of the jury right that formed a barrier between the

defendant and the State, the majority has erected a bar-

rier between judges and legislatures, establishing that

discretionary sentencing is the domain of judges. Legisla-

tures must keep their respectful distance.

I find this new rule impossible to square with the histor-

ical understanding of the jury right as a defense from

judges, not a defense of judges. See Apprendi, supra, at

498 (SCALIA, J., concurring) (“Judges, it is sometimes

necessary to remind ourselves, are part of the State”).

Just as the Sixth Amendment “limits judicial power only

to the extent that the claimed judicial power infringes on

the province of the jury,” Blakely, 542 U. S., at 308, so too

it limits legislative power only to the extent that power

infringes on the province of the jury. Because the claimed

infringement here is on the province of the judge, not the

jury, the jury right has no work to do.

IV

The majority offers several arguments to the contrary. I

do not find them persuasive.

First, the majority asserts that “because the legally

prescribed range is the penalty affixed to the crime, it

follows that a fact increasing either end of the range pro-

duces a new penalty and constitutes an ingredient of the

offense.” Ante, at 11 (citation omitted). The syllogism

trips out of the gate, for its first premise—that the consti-

tutionally relevant “penalty” includes the bottom end of

the statutory range—simply assumes the answer to the

question presented. Neither of the historical sources to

which the majority points gives an answer: The Bishop

treatise speaks only to situations in which “a statute

prescribes a particular punishment,” not a range of possi-

ble punishments. 1 Bishop, Criminal Procedure §598, at

360–361. The Wharton treatise is similarly unhelpful,

focusing on statutes that change the maximum or alter the

8 ALLEYNE v. UNITED STATES

ROBERTS, C. J., dissenting

nature of the common law crime. See 1 F. Wharton, Crim-

inal Law §371, p. 291 (rev. 7th ed. 1874). The sources

provided in the Apprendi concurrence offer no support, for

as already discussed, we lack historical evidence about the

treatment of facts that altered only the floor of a sentenc-

ing range.

Second, the majority observes that “criminal statutes

have long specified both the floor and ceiling of sentence

ranges, which is evidence that both define the legally

prescribed penalty.” Ante, at 11. Again, though, this

simply assumes the core premise: That the constitution-

ally relevant “penalty” involves both the statutory minimum

and the maximum. Unless one accepts that premise on

faith, the fact that statutes have long specified both floor

and ceiling is evidence of nothing more than that stat-

utes have long specified both the floor and the ceiling. Nor

does it help to say that “the floor of a mandatory range is

as relevant to wrongdoers as the ceiling.” Ante, at 12. The

meaning of the Sixth Amendment does not turn on what

wrongdoers care about most.

More importantly, legal rules frequently focus on the

maximum sentence while ignoring the minimum, even

though both are “relevant” to punishment. Closest to this

case, the question whether the jury right applies at all

turns on whether the maximum sentence exceeds six

months—not, say, whether the minimum punishment

involves time in prison. Blanton v. North Las Vegas, 489

U. S. 538, 543 (1989); see also Lewis v. United States, 518

U. S. 322, 326 (1996) (“In evaluating the seriousness of the

offense, we place primary emphasis on the maximum

prison term authorized”). Likewise, the rights to vote and

to bear arms are typically denied to felons—that is, those

convicted of a crime with a maximum sentence of more

than one year in prison. See Richardson v. Ramirez, 418

U. S. 24, 48 (1974); District of Columbia v. Heller, 554

U. S. 570, 626 (2008); Black’s Law Dictionary 694 (9th ed.

Cite as: 570 U. S. ____ (2013) 9

ROBERTS, C. J., dissenting

2009). Examples of other distinctions turning only on max-

imum penalties abound, as in cases of recidivism en-

hancements that apply only to prior convictions with a

maximum sentence of more than a specified number of

years. See, e.g., 18 U. S. C. §924(e)(2). That a minimum

sentence is “relevant” to punishment, and that a statute

defines it, does not mean it must be treated the same as

the maximum sentence the law allows.

Third, the majority offers that “it is impossible to dis-

pute that facts increasing the legally prescribed floor

aggravate the punishment.” Ante, at 12. This argument

proves too much, for it would apply with equal force to any

fact which leads the judge, in the exercise of his own dis-

cretion, to choose a penalty higher than he otherwise

would have chosen. The majority nowhere explains what

it is about the jury right that bars a determination by

Congress that brandishing (or any other fact) makes an

offense worth two extra years, but not an identical deter-

mination by a judge. Simply calling one “aggravation” and

the other “discretion” does not do the trick.

Fourth, the majority argues that “[i]t is no answer to say

that the defendant could have received the same sentence

with or without” a particular factual finding, pointing out

“that a defendant could not be convicted and sentenced for

assault, if the jury only finds the facts for larceny, even if

the punishments prescribed for each crime are identical.”

Ante, at 14. In that hypothetical case, the legislature has

chosen to define two crimes with two different sets of

elements. Courts must, of course, respect that legislative

judgment. But that tells us nothing about when courts

can override the legislature’s decision not to create sepa-

rate crimes, and instead to treat a particular fact as a

trigger for a minimum sentence within the already-

authorized range.

10 ALLEYNE v. UNITED STATES

ROBERTS, C. J., dissenting

* * *

I will not quibble with the majority’s application of our

stare decisis precedents. But because I believe the major-

ity’s new rule—safeguarding the power of judges, not

juries—finds no support in the history or purpose of the

Sixth Amendment, I respectfully dissent.

Cite as: 570 U. S. ____ (2013) 1

ALITO, J., dissenting

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

_________________

No. 11–9335

_________________

ALLEN RYAN ALLEYNE, PETITIONER v.

UNITED STATES

ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF

APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

[June 17, 2013]

JUSTICE ALITO, dissenting.

The Court overrules a well-entrenched precedent with

barely a mention of stare decisis. See ante, at 16, n. 6.

Stare decisis is, of course, not an “inexorable command”

in the field of constitutional law. Payne v. Tennessee, 501

U. S. 808, 828 (1991). Nevertheless, the Court ought to be

consistent in its willingness to reconsider precedent. If

Harris v. United States, 536 U. S. 545 (2002), and McMil-

lan v. Pennsylvania, 477 U. S. 79 (1986), can be cast aside

simply because a majority of this Court now disagrees

with them, that same approach may properly be followed

in future cases. See Arizona v. Gant, 556 U. S. 332, 358–

364 (2009) (ALITO, J., dissenting).

If the Court is of a mind to reconsider existing prece-

dent, a prime candidate should be Apprendi v. New Jersey,

530 U. S. 466 (2000). Although Apprendi purported to rely

on the original understanding of the jury trial right, there

are strong reasons to question the Court’s analysis on that

point. See, e.g., Bibas, Judicial Fact-Finding and Sentence

Enhancements in a World of Guilty Pleas, 110 Yale L. J.

1097, 1123–1132 (2001) (critiquing the historical evidence

relied upon by the Apprendi majority and concurrence,

and concluding (1) that the “broad judicial discretion”

characteristic of eighteenth-century common-law misde-

meanor sentencing “undercuts the suggestion that sen-

2 ALLEYNE v. UNITED STATES

ALITO, J., dissenting

tencing was the sacred province of juries alone,” (2) that

even the “nineteenth-century tradition was not uniform,

suggesting that the common law had no fixed rule on the

subject,” and (3) that “no eighteenth-century evidence

link[ed] this [nineteenth-century] tradition back to the time

of the Founding”); Little & Chen, The Lost History of

Apprendi and the Blakely Petition for Rehearing, 17 Fed.

Sentencing Rep. 69, 69–74 (2004) (“Blakely and Apprendi

were undoubtedly founded on an erroneous historical un-

derstanding of the Framers’ views in 1790 when they

wrote the 6th Amendment’s jury-trial guarantee. The fact

that the Framers themselves wrote over a dozen indeter-

minate sentencing ranges in the first federal crime bill (see

1 Stat. 112–118 . . .), has simply been overlooked by the

Court”); Mitchell, Apprendi’s Domain, 2006 Sup. Ct. Rev.

297, 298–299 (2006) (arguing, in the context of defending

a broader conception of the jury right, that “Apprendi’s

historical claim that sentencing enhancements were treated

as ‘elements’ of offenses whenever they increased a de-

fendant’s maximum punishment is demonstrably mis-

taken” and that “the platitudes from Joel Prentiss Bishop’s

nineteenth-century treatises, which the pro-Apprendi

Justices repeatedly invoke to support this assertion [that

sentencing enhancements that increased a maximum pun-

ishment were treated as elements of the offense], are pat-

ently false and did not accurately describe the law in

actual court decisions of that era” (footnotes omitted)).

The Court’s decision creates a precedent about prece-

dent that may have greater precedential effect than the

dubious decisions on which it relies.*

——————

* Speaking for herself, JUSTICE GINSBURG, and JUSTICE KAGAN—but

not for the Court—JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR argues that Harris’ stare decisis

value is undermined by the subsequent reasoning of the Court’s Ap-

prendi line of cases and by the fact that no one rationale in Harris

commanded five votes. I disagree.

In my view, Harris’ force is not vitiated by the Court’s Apprendi line

Cite as: 570 U. S. ____ (2013) 3

ALITO, J., dissenting

——————

of cases, for two reasons. First, that line of cases is predicated on a

purported Sixth Amendment requirement that juries find facts that

increase maximum penalties, not mandatory minimums. Accordingly,

as THE CHIEF JUSTICE’s dissent persuasively explains, ante, at 1–7,

Apprendi and its progeny have no impact on the distinct question

resolved by Harris, which does not bear on the jury right. Second, the

Apprendi line is now too intellectually incoherent to undermine any

“contrary” precedents. If the rationale of Apprendi—which, as broadly

construed by the Court in this case, is that “[a]ny fact that, by law,

increases the penalty for a crime is an ‘element’ that must be submitted

to the jury and found beyond a reasonable doubt,” ante, at 1—were

taken seriously, discretionary sentencing, as prescribed by 18 U. S. C.

§3553(a), should also be held to violate the Sixth Amendment. But a

majority of the Court has not been willing to go where its reasoning

leads.

Nor can it be correct to say that “Harris in no way strengthens the

force of stare decisis in this case” because a “ ‘majority of the Court

expressly disagreed with the rationale of [a] plurality.’ ” Ante, at 3–4

(SOTOMAYOR, J., concurring) (quoting Seminole Tribe of Fla. v. Florida,

517 U. S. 44, 66 (1996)). Decisions in which no one rationale commands

a majority of the Court—including prominent decisions based on the

views of a single Justice—are often thought to have precedential effect.

See, e.g., United States v. Booker, 543 U. S. 220 (2005); Regents of Univ.

of Cal. v. Bakke, 438 U. S. 265, 269–272 (1978) (opinion of Powell, J.).

And, of course, if Harris is not entitled to stare decisis weight, then

neither is the Court’s opinion in this case. After all, only four Members

of the Court think that the Court’s holding is the correct reading of

the Constitution. See ante, at 1–3 (BREYER, J., concurring in part and

concurring in judgment).

As she concedes, ante, at 4, JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR’s concurrence is nec-

essarily selective in its discussion of the factors that the Court has

previously found to be relevant to the application of stare decisis. For

example, she does not argue—presumably because there is no good

argument to be made—that Harris and McMillan v. Pennsylvania, 477

U. S. 79 (1986) (which provide the framework under which criminal

prosecutions have been carried out for at least the past 27 years) have

proved “ ‘unworkable.’ ” Vieth v. Jubelirer, 541 U. S. 267, 306 (2004)

(plurality opinion) (quoting Payne v. Tennessee, 501 U. S. 808, 827

(1991)). Nor does she contend that “circumstances” outside the Court

“have changed so radically as to undermine [Harris’] critical factual

assumptions.” Randall v. Sorrell, 548 U. S. 230, 244 (2006) (plurality

opinion). Indeed, no party or amicus has cited any such circumstances.

In short, other than the fact that there are currently five Justices

4 ALLEYNE v. UNITED STATES

ALITO, J., dissenting

——————

willing to vote to overrule Harris, and not five Justices willing to

overrule Apprendi, there is no compelling reason why the Court over-

rules the former rather than the latter. If the opportunity arises in the

future to overrule Apprendi or the present case—both of which presum-

ably involve “procedural rules . . . that do not govern primary conduct

and do not implicate the reliance interests of private parties,” ante, at 2

(SOTOMAYOR, J., concurring)—the precedent the Court sets today will be

relevant to the issue of stare decisis.