United States v. Booker
E167747
United States v. Booker is a landmark 2005 U.S. Supreme Court decision that rendered the Federal Sentencing Guidelines advisory rather than mandatory to preserve their constitutionality under the Sixth Amendment.
All labels observed (2)
| Label | Occurrences |
|---|---|
| United States v. Booker canonical | 2 |
| United States v. Freddie J. Booker | 1 |
How this entity was disambiguated
This entity first appeared as the object of triple T1465834 — resolving that mention is where its identity was fixed. The disambiguator weighed these candidate entities and picked the highlighted one (or “None”, minting a new entity). This is how homonymy is resolved: the same surface form can point to different entities.
NED1
Entity disambiguation (via context triple)
gpt-5-mini-2025-08-07
Target entity: United States v. Booker Context triple: [Stephen G. Breyer, notableCaseParticipation, United States v. Booker]
-
A.
United States v. Lopez
United States v. Lopez is a 1995 U.S. Supreme Court case that marked the first time in decades the Court struck down a federal law for exceeding Congress’s power under the Commerce Clause, signaling a revival of limits on federal regulatory authority.
-
B.
United States v. Eichman
United States v. Eichman is a 1990 U.S. Supreme Court case that struck down a federal law banning flag desecration as unconstitutional under the First Amendment’s protection of free speech.
-
C.
Dickerson v. United States
Dickerson v. United States is a 2000 U.S. Supreme Court case that reaffirmed the constitutional basis of Miranda warnings and held that Congress could not overrule Miranda v. Arizona by statute.
-
D.
Printz v. United States
Printz v. United States is a 1997 U.S. Supreme Court decision that limited federal power by holding that Congress cannot compel state or local officials to implement federal regulatory programs.
-
E.
Shelby County v. Holder
Shelby County v. Holder is a 2013 U.S. Supreme Court decision that significantly weakened the Voting Rights Act of 1965 by striking down the formula used to determine which jurisdictions required federal preclearance for changes to their voting laws.
- F. None of above. chosen
- G. Unsure - the case is ambiguous/there is not enough information to decide.
NED2
Entity disambiguation (via description)
gpt-5-mini-2025-08-07
Target entity: United States v. Booker Target entity description: United States v. Booker is a landmark 2005 U.S. Supreme Court decision that rendered the Federal Sentencing Guidelines advisory rather than mandatory to preserve their constitutionality under the Sixth Amendment.
-
A.
United States v. Lopez
United States v. Lopez is a 1995 U.S. Supreme Court case that marked the first time in decades the Court struck down a federal law for exceeding Congress’s power under the Commerce Clause, signaling a revival of limits on federal regulatory authority.
-
B.
United States v. Eichman
United States v. Eichman is a 1990 U.S. Supreme Court case that struck down a federal law banning flag desecration as unconstitutional under the First Amendment’s protection of free speech.
-
C.
Dickerson v. United States
Dickerson v. United States is a 2000 U.S. Supreme Court case that reaffirmed the constitutional basis of Miranda warnings and held that Congress could not overrule Miranda v. Arizona by statute.
-
D.
Printz v. United States
Printz v. United States is a 1997 U.S. Supreme Court decision that limited federal power by holding that Congress cannot compel state or local officials to implement federal regulatory programs.
-
E.
Shelby County v. Holder
Shelby County v. Holder is a 2013 U.S. Supreme Court decision that significantly weakened the Voting Rights Act of 1965 by striking down the formula used to determine which jurisdictions required federal preclearance for changes to their voting laws.
- F. None of above. chosen
Statements (51)
| Predicate | Object |
|---|---|
| instanceOf |
United States Supreme Court case
ⓘ
criminal sentencing case ⓘ landmark decision ⓘ |
| areaOfImpact | federal criminal sentencing practice ⓘ |
| citation |
125 S. Ct. 738
ⓘ
160 L. Ed. 2d 621 ⓘ 543 U.S. 220 ⓘ |
| constitutionalProvisionInterpreted |
Due Process Clause
ⓘ
U.S. Constitution, Sixth Amendment ⓘ
surface form:
Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution
|
| country |
United States of America
ⓘ
surface form:
United States
|
| court | Supreme Court of the United States ⓘ |
| decisionDate | 2005-01-12 ⓘ |
| dissentBy |
Anthony M. Kennedy
ⓘ
Antonin Scalia ⓘ Clarence Thomas ⓘ Sandra Day O’Connor ⓘ
surface form:
Sandra Day O'Connor
William H. Rehnquist ⓘ |
| docketNumber | 04-104 ⓘ |
| effectOnLaw |
Changed standard of appellate review of federal sentences to reasonableness review.
ⓘ
Made the Federal Sentencing Guidelines advisory in federal courts. ⓘ Required federal sentencing judges to consider the Guidelines along with other statutory factors in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). ⓘ |
| fullCaseName |
United States v. Booker
self-linksurface differs
ⓘ
surface form:
United States v. Freddie J. Booker
|
| holding |
Any fact (other than a prior conviction) necessary to support a sentence exceeding the maximum authorized by facts admitted by the defendant or found by a jury must be proved to a jury beyond a reasonable doubt.
ⓘ
Mandatory application of the Federal Sentencing Guidelines violates the Sixth Amendment when sentences are increased based on judge-found facts. ⓘ United States Sentencing Guidelines ⓘ
surface form:
The Federal Sentencing Guidelines are advisory rather than mandatory.
|
| joinedByInMeritsMajority |
Antonin Scalia
ⓘ
Clarence Thomas ⓘ David H. Souter ⓘ John Paul Stevens ⓘ |
| joinedByInRemedialMajority |
Anthony M. Kennedy
ⓘ
Ruth Bader Ginsburg ⓘ Sandra Day O’Connor ⓘ
surface form:
Sandra Day O'Connor
Stephen G. Breyer ⓘ William H. Rehnquist ⓘ |
| jurisdiction | federal courts of the United States ⓘ |
| legalSubject |
U.S. Constitution, Sixth Amendment
ⓘ
surface form:
Sixth Amendment
constitutional law ⓘ criminal law ⓘ federal sentencing guidelines ⓘ sentencing law ⓘ |
| majorityOpinionBy |
John Paul Stevens
ⓘ
Stephen G. Breyer ⓘ |
| opinionType |
merits majority opinion
ⓘ
remedial majority opinion ⓘ |
| relatedCase |
Apprendi v. New Jersey
ⓘ
Blakely v. Washington ⓘ United States v. Fanfan ⓘ |
| subsequentInterpretationBy |
Gall v. United States
ⓘ
Kimbrough v. United States ⓘ Rita v. United States ⓘ |
| term | October Term 2004 ⓘ |
How these facts were elicited
The pipeline generated the facts above by prompting gpt-5.1 with this entity's name + description and the instruction below.
Instruction
You are a knowledge base construction expert. Given a subject entity and a description of it, return factual statements that you know for the subject as a JSON list of dictionaries(triples), where keys must be "subject", "predicate" and "object". The number of facts may be very high, between 25 to 50 or more, for very popular subjects. For less popular subjects, the number of facts can be very low, like 5 or 10. # Requirements - If you don't know the subject at all, return an empty list. - If the subject is not a named entity, return an empty list. - Include at least one triple where predicate is "instanceOf". - Do not get too wordy. - Separate several objects into multiple triples with one object.
Input
Subject: United States v. Booker Description of subject: United States v. Booker is a landmark 2005 U.S. Supreme Court decision that rendered the Federal Sentencing Guidelines advisory rather than mandatory to preserve their constitutionality under the Sixth Amendment.
Referenced by (3)
Full triples — surface form annotated when it differs from this entity's canonical label.
this entity surface form:
United States v. Freddie J. Booker