Peugh v. United States
133 S. Ct. 2072
| SCOTUS | 2013Background
- Peugh and Hollewell engaged in two fraudulent schemes against banks involving fake grain delivery contracts and check kiting (1999–2000).
- Peugh was convicted on five counts of bank fraud; other counts were acquitted or Hollewell pled guilty.
- At sentencing Peugh argued the Ex Post Facto Clause required applying the 1998 Guidelines, not the 2009 Guidelines.
- The 1998 Guidelines produced a 30–37 month range; the 2009 Guidelines produced a 70–87 month range.
- District Court sentenced Peugh to 70 months, bottom of the 2009-range; Seventh Circuit affirmed.
- The Supreme Court reversed, holding retroactive application of the higher Guidelines violated the Ex Post Facto Clause.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does retroactive application of higher Guidelines violate Ex Post Facto? | Peugh contends retroactive higher range increases punishment. | United States argues Guidelines advisory; no ex post facto risk. | Yes; retroactive higher range creates sufficient risk to increase punishment. |
| Do the Guidelines have sufficient legal effect to be a ‘law’ for Ex Post Facto purposes? | Guidelines are binding and increase punishment retroactively. | Guidelines are advisory post-Booker and not binding. | Guidelines have sufficient legal character to trigger Ex Post Facto concerns. |
| What standard governs ex post facto review of sentencing changes under Booker's regime? | Retroactive amendment creates risk of higher sentence; Miller supports concern. | Advisory nature and discretion under Booker undermine a strict link to punishment. | A retrospective increase in Guidelines range suffices to violate Ex Post Facto. |
Key Cases Cited
- Calder v. Bull, 3 Dall. 386 (1798) (ex post facto concept origins and punishment change)
- Miller v. Florida, 482 U.S. 423 (1987) (within-guidelines sentence burdens and departure rules; ex post facto verdict)
- Booker v. United States, 543 U.S. 220 (2005) (mandatory guidelines struck; advisory framework)
- Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38 (2007) ( Guidelines as starting point; reasonableness review)
- Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338 (2007) (presumption of reasonableness for within-Guidelines sentences)
- Morales v. California Dept. of Corrections, 514 U.S. 499 (1995) (sufficient risk test development for ex post facto)
- Garner v. Jones, 529 U.S. 244 (2000) (risk assessment for ex post facto; discretion context)
- Lindsey v. Washington, 301 U.S. 397 (1937) (punishment linkage and ex post facto analysis)
- Demaree, 459 F.3d 791 (CA7 2006) (contemporary post-Booker sentencing guidance and advisory status)
- Collins v. Youngblood, 497 U.S. 37 (1990) (ex post facto original meaning and historical grounding)