In a 5-4 decision, the U.S. Supreme Court voted yesterday to keep Oregon prisoners in jail by upholding a state law.
The decision of Oregon v. Ice resolved discrepancies about legal authority as it applies to certain criminal cases. In the case, Thomas Eugene Ice of Marion County was convicted of sexually abusing an 11-year-old girl, according to an Oregon Department of Justice press release.
The Oregon judge who first ruled on Ice’s case imposed consecutive sentences for four of Ice’s six convictions. Ice’s attorneys contended the judge’s actions by referencing a 2000 U.S. Supreme Court ruling, arguing that a jury was needed before a judge could impose consecutive sentences.
Notable Oregon Cases Argued in Front of the U.S. Supreme Court
PHILIP MORRIS USA V. WILLIAMS (2007) ? Portland resident Mayola Williams filed a fraud claim against Philip Morris concerning the publicity campaigns of both Philip Morris and the tobacco industry. Williams’ husband died of lung cancer. With a 5-4 decision, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled the tobacco industry could not be liable for harming people. In 2008, in a third review of the case, Williams was awarded $79.5 million in punitive damages. GONZALES V. OREGON (2006) ? The U.S. Justice Department, headed by former Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, sought to end Oregon’s Death with Dignity Act. The act allows terminally-ill Oregonians to voluntarily end their lives with medications prescribed by a physician. A 6-3 decision ruled in favor of Oregon. VERNONIA SCHOOL DISTRICT V. ACTON (1995) ? The U.S. Supreme Court upheld Vernonia School District’s practice of random drug testing on student athletes. Although the act was called into question as a possible violation of the Fourth Amendment, a 6-3 decision maintained that the school district proved that the testing was necessary. |
In 2007, the Oregon Supreme Court voted in favor of Ice’s attorneys. The Oregon Department of Justice went on to appeal the decision. Yesterday’s ruling upheld the judge’s power in such matters by upholding the Oregon law.
“The decision assumes that criminals convicted of crimes will serve their full sentences,” Oregon Department of Justice spokesperson Tony Green said. “It also helps achieve the goal of uniformity among sentences for similar crimes committed across the state.”
In yesterday’s decision, the high court agreed with the Oregon Department of Justice, represented by former Oregon Attorney General Hardy Myers, and maintained Oregon’s current sentencing structure.
“This basically gives discretion back to the court,” Chief Deputy District Attorney Patricia Perlow said. “If the Supreme Court hadn’t affirmed Oregon’s current law, all applicable cases would have needed to be reviewed to see if they were handled correctly under the new ruling.”
The decision revealed a mixed response from the court, as conservative and liberal justices voted independently of their standard political labels. Associate Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, John Paul Stevens, Anthony Kennedy, Stephen Breyer and Samuel Alito voted in the majority, while Chief Justice John Roberts and Associate Justices Antonin Scalia, David Hackett Souter and Clarence Thomas dissented.
While under Myers’ leadership, the Oregon Department of Justice has won six cases argued before the U.S. Supreme Court.
[email protected]
