The Supreme Court rules, Congress responds. http://www.mandatorymadness.org/site/pp.asp?c=erKNIYPHIsE&b=475249 On January 12, 2005, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that it is unconstitutional to force federal judges to increase sentences based on facts not presented to and found by a jury. Prior to this ruling, federal judges regularly increased sentences in this manner under the Federal Sentencing Guidelines. In a companion opinion issued the same day, the Supreme Court declared that the sentencing ranges contained in the Sentencing Guidelines, which judges were previously required to follow, should be treated just as advisory. This ruling does not, however, affect mandatory minimums enacted by Congress. As a result of these rulings, on April 6, 2005, U.S. Rep. James Sensenbrenner introduced the “Defending America's Most Vulnerable: Safe Access to Drug Treatment and Child Protection Act of 2005.†As Professor Frank Bowman wrote in a letter to Congress, the bill “transforms the Federal Sentencing Guidelines into a complex system of mandatory minimum sentences.†Tell your members of Congress to oppose mandatory minimums today by going here: https://www.kintera.org/siteapps/ad...7864C1BE2B9612396&action=2213&template=x.ascx To view a copy of the bill text, go here: http://www.mandatorymadness.org/site/pp.asp?c=erKNIYPHIsE&b=506229 To see an analysis of the section of the bill that responds to the Supreme Court rulings, go here: http://www.mandatorymadness.org/site/pp.asp?c=erKNIYPHIsE&b=506039