Whether, when determining the “reasonableness” of a district court sentence under United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005), it is appropriate to require district courts to justify a deviation from the United States Sentencing Guidelines with a finding of extraordinary circumstances.

Sentencing Law and Policy has been following the case.

Whether the Supreme Court uses Gall to broaden or restrict the scope of post-Booker discretion, the decision in Gall is likely to impact greatly how all district courts sentence after Booker. The decision will also likely frame future debates over Booker as a new Attorney General (and eventually a new administration) takes stock of federal sentencing realities.

Here's Kimbrough v. United States, the crack case, in a nutshell :

The case involves Derrick Kimbrough, a black veteran of the first Gulf War. He received a 15-year prison sentence from a federal judge for dealing crack and powder cocaine and possession of a firearm in Virginia. But sentencing guidelines required a much longer sentence.

An appeals court later ruled that judges can't impose sentences shorter than the guidelines just because they don't agree with the sentencing disparity for crack and powder cocaine offenses. But now the Supreme Court will decide if judges are bound by the sentencing requirements.

The questions in Kimbrough (pdf):

(1) In carrying out the mandate of §3553(a) to impose a sentence that is “sufficient but not greater than necessary” on a defendant, may a district court consider either the impact of the so-called “100:1 crack/powder ratio” implemented in the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines or the reports and recommendations of the U.S. Sentencing Commission in 1995, 1997, and 2002 regarding the ratio?

(2) In carrying out the mandate of §3553(a) to impose a sentence that is “sufficient
but not greater than necessary” upon a defendant, how is a district court to consider and balance the various factors spelled out in the statute, and in particular, subsection (a)(6), which addresses “the need to avoid unwarranted disparity among defendants with similar records who have been found guilty of similar conduct”?

I think it's a positive sign these cases were accepted for review by the Supreme Court. Hopefully, the decisions will afford some long overdue and much needed relief from the draconian sentences imposed under the Guidelines.

Keep in mind though that the Guidelines are but one part of the problem. The other is mandatory minimum sentences which only Congress can repeal.