Esteras v. United States
View Official PDFBelow are plain-language sections to help you understand what the Court decided in Esteras v. United States and why it matters. Quotes are taken from the syllabus (the Court’s short summary at the start of the opinion).
Summary
A short, plain-English overview of Esteras v. United States.
In Esteras v. United States, the Supreme Court addressed whether a district court can consider retributive factors under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(2)(A) when revoking supervised release. The Court concluded that such considerations are not permissible, as § 3583(e) excludes these factors. This decision clarifies the statutory interpretation of sentencing guidelines for supervised release revocation.
Holding
The single most important “bottom line” of what the Court decided in Esteras v. United States.
The Court held that a district court may not consider § 3553(a)(2)(A) when revoking a defendant's term of supervised release.
Constitutional Concepts
These are the Constitution-related themes that appear in Esteras v. United States. Click a concept to see other cases that involve the same idea.
-
Why Procedural Due Process is relevant to Esteras v. United States
The case involves the procedural requirements for revoking supervised release, specifically which factors a court may consider.
Syllabus excerpt (verbatim)A district court considering whether to revoke a defendant's term of supervised release may not consider § 3553(a)(2)(A), which covers retribution vis-à-vis the defendant's underlying criminal offense.
-
Why Judicial Review is relevant to Esteras v. United States
The Court's decision involves interpreting statutory provisions and determining the limits of judicial consideration in sentencing decisions.
Syllabus excerpt (verbatim)The statutory structure confirms this negative inference. Neighboring provisions governing the imposition and revocation of other kinds of sentences instruct courts to consider all the § 3553(a) factors.
-
Why Substantive Due Process is relevant to Esteras v. United States
The decision addresses the substantive limits on what considerations can be used in sentencing decisions, particularly excluding retribution.
Syllabus excerpt (verbatim)So when a defendant violates a condition of supervised release, courts must consider the forward-looking sentencing ends, but may not consider the backward-looking purpose of retribution.
Key Quotes
Short excerpts from the syllabus in Esteras v. United States that support the summary and concepts above.
District courts cannot consider § 3553(a)(2)(A) when revoking supervised release.
The itemized list in § 3583(e) is exhaustive and supplies the entire universe of factors courts may consider.
Supervised release 'fulfills rehabilitative ends' and 'provides individuals with postconfinement assistance.'
