Almendarez-Torres v. United States
Is it still good law? What later courts have actually done to this case.
Status
More on how this was screened
Two additional criticisms appeared only in separate judicial opinions and do not represent action by the citing courts.
12,221 later cases cite Almendarez-Torres v. United States; 4,886 of those citations sat close to treatment language and were flagged for reading, and all of them have been read. Citations that did not sit near treatment language were not flagged and were not read one by one, so a court that weakened this case without using any of that language would not appear here.
Relying on Almendarez-Torres v. United States?
This page shows what later courts did to it. Ask about your specific facts and see whether it still carries your argument, with citations you can check.
Treatments
Limited
-
The Ninth Circuit confined Almendarez-Torres's exception to convictions obtained with jury-trial and reasonable-doubt protections and declined to extend it to nonjury juvenile adjudications.
United States v. Tighe · Ninth Circuit · filed
Although this Circuit recognized the continuing precedential value of Almendarez-Torres in Pacheco-Zepeda, 234 F.3d at 413-14, we conclude that, given the “unique facts” of Almendarez-Torres, its holding regarding prior convictions should remain a “narrow exception” to Apprendi that does not extend to nonjury juvenile adjudications.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener → -
The Ninth Circuit declined to extend Almendarez-Torres where an earlier offense transformed a later Section 1325 offense from a misdemeanor to a felony rather than merely increasing the sentence.
United States v. Rodriguez-Gonzales · Ninth Circuit · filed
We conclude that when, as in this case, the earlier offense operates not merely to increase a defendant’s sentence, but to transform his second offense from a misdemeanor to a felony, Almendarez-Torres does not apply.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener → -
The Supreme Court limited judicial factfinding about a prior guilty plea to conclusive judicial records, holding that facts too far removed from the prior judgment fall outside Almendarez-Torres.
Shepard v. United States · Supreme Court of the United States · filed
While the disputed fact here can be described as a fact about a prior conviction, it is too far removed from the conclusive significance of a prior judicial record, and too much like the findings subject to Jones and Apprendi, to say that Almendarez-Torres clearly authorizes a judge to resolve the dispute. The rule of reading statutes to avoid serious risks of unconstitutionality, see Jones, supra, at 239, therefore counsels us to limit the scope of judicial factfinding on the disputed generic character of a prior plea, just as Taylor constrained judicial findings about the generic implication of a jury’s verdict.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener → -
The Supreme Court confined Almendarez-Torres to the fact and elements of a prior conviction and held that it does not permit a judge to decide whether prior crimes occurred on different occasions.
Erlinger v. United States · Supreme Court of the United States · filed
In the years since that decision, this Court has expressly delimited its reach. It persists as a “narrow exception” permitting judges to fnd only “the fact of a prior conviction.” Alleyne, 570 U. S., at 111, n. 1. Under that exception, a judge may “do no more, consistent with the Sixth Amendment, than determine what crime, with what elements, the defendant was convicted of.” Mathis, 579 U. S., at 511–512.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener →
Questioned
-
The Supreme Court called it arguable that Almendarez-Torres was incorrectly decided while preserving it only as a narrow exception for prior convictions.
Apprendi v. New Jersey · Supreme Court of the United States · filed
Even though it is arguable that Almendarez-Torres was incorrectly decided, and that a logical application of our reasoning today should apply if the recidivist issue were contested, Apprendi does not contest the decision’s validity and we need not revisit it for purposes of our decision today to treat the case as a narrow exception to the general rule we recalled at the outset.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener → -
The Eighth Circuit questioned Almendarez-Torres's future viability after examining Apprendi and other Supreme Court opinions, while continuing to apply it.
United States v. Davis · Eighth Circuit · filed
A close examination of Supreme Court cases casts further doubt on the future viability of Almendarez-Torres.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener → -
The Sixth Circuit questioned Almendarez-Torres's stability, describing it as standing on shifting sands while continuing to follow it.
United States v. Mack · Sixth Circuit · filed
Although Almendarez-Torres may stand on shifting sands, the case presently remains good law and we must follow it until the Supreme Court expressly overrules it.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener →
Does this case still carry your argument?
Describe your facts. Ezel reads Almendarez-Torres v. United States and the cases that treated it, then tells you whether it still holds for your situation, with citations.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Checks the law as it stands today, not only this page
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace