Tapia v United States

From Peter Wolff, Federal Public Defender, District of Hawaii:

"Today, the Supreme Court decided Tapia v. United States, No. 10-5400, holding that a district court may not impose or lengthen a term of imprisonment in order to promote the defendant's rehabilitation.  In an opinion written by Justice Kagan, the Court breezes through the familiar sentencing "story line" to demonstrate that 18 USC 3582(a), which sets forth the "factors to be considered" when a court orders imprisonment, precludes district courts from considering rehabilitation for purposes of determining whether to impose a term of imprisonment or to lengthen the term of imprisonment.  Put another way, "when sentencing an offender to prison, the court shall consider all the purposes of punishment except rehabilitation --- because imprisonment is not an appropriate means of pursuing that goal."  This conclusion is supported by the text of 3582(a), its context in the SRA (including 28 U.S.C. 994(k), a directive to the Sentencing Commission), and its legislative history.  End of story.  Because the judge in this case considered the defendant's need to participate in RDAP when imposing a term of imprisonment at the top of the guideline range (note that the holding applies to both within-guideline sentences and sentences above the guidelines), the Court reversed the decision of the Ninth Circuit.  (Justice Sotomayor, joined by Justice Alito, concurred but wrote separately to express skepticism that the district judge actually considered the defendant's rehabilitative needs in choosing the term of imprisonment.)"