Oregon v. Ice — Scalia, J., dissenting

Summary

Justice Scalia dissents, arguing that the Court’s decision improperly narrows the Apprendi rule by limiting its application to the total length of a defendant’s sentence rather than to each individual count. He maintains that any fact increasing a sentence—such as the factual finding that warrants consecutive terms—must be proved to a jury beyond a reasonable doubt under the Sixth Amendment. Accordingly, the Oregon sentencing scheme, which permits judges to make those factual findings, violates that constitutional guarantee.