Oregon v. Ice

Summary

The Court, in an opinion by Justice Ginsburg, held that the Sixth Amendment permits Oregon to require judges, rather than juries, to find facts necessary to impose consecutive sentences for multiple offenses. The Court relied on the historical judicial responsibility for choosing between consecutive and concurrent sentences and the States' authority over their criminal justice systems. It reversed the Oregon Supreme Court and remanded. Justice Scalia dissented, joined by Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Souter and Thomas, arguing that Apprendi requires jury findings whenever additional facts are necessary to authorize greater punishment, including consecutive sentences.