James v. United States — Thomas, J., dissenting

Summary

Justice Thomas, dissenting, would have treated the statutory sentencing scheme as constitutionally infirm because it permits a judge to find facts that increase the sentence beyond the maximum authorized by the jury's verdict or the defendant's admissions. He therefore viewed the Court's resolution of whether attempted burglary qualifies under the residual provision as unnecessary. Justice Scalia, joined by Justices Stevens and Ginsburg, separately dissented, arguing that the residual provision is impermissibly indeterminate and that attempted burglary does not categorically pose the required risk.