Clarence Thomas Urges Supreme Court to 'Correct' 26-Year-Old Precedent

Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas urged the Court to "correct" a 26-year-old precedent involving a narrow exception to Americans' Sixth Amendment right to a fair trial.

In a 6-3 decision in Erlinger v. United States on Friday, the Court ruled against the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals decision to not disturb a district court's sentencing of Paul Erlinger, who was convicted of unlawful possession of a firearm as a felon.

While Erlinger would normally get a maximum sentence of 10 years for that conviction, since he was charged under the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA) the court had to issue a minimum 15-year sentence. The ACCA increases defendants' prison terms if they have three prior convictions for violent felonies or serious drug offenses.

Erlinger argued that the string of burglaries that prosecutors used to argue for the 15-year ACCA sentence occurred during a single criminal episode rather than four separate occasions meaning that he did not have the three prior convictions needed for the ACCA sentence. Furthermore, he claimed that his Fifth and Sixth Amendment rights entitled him to have a jury assess whether the burglaries were part of a single episode or if they occurred on different occasions.

A district court denied Erlinger's request for a jury. However, while Erlinger appealed the district court's judgment, the government admitted to making an error, saying that the Constitution requires a jury to unanimously determine, beyond a reasonable doubt, whether Erlinger's burglaries were committed on different occasions. Nevertheless, the appellate court upheld the district court's ruling and then Erlinger took his case to the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court wrote in its majority opinion on Friday, "The right to a jury trial 'has always been' an important part of what keeps this Nation 'free' … Because the Fifth and Sixth Amendments do not tolerate the denial of that right in this case, the judgment of the Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit is vacated, and the matter is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion."

Meanwhile, in a concurring opinion, Justice Thomas mentioned the 1998 case Almendarez-Torres v. United States, in which "the Court created a 'narrow exception' to the Sixth Amendment's general rule and allowed a judge to find 'the fact of a prior conviction,' even though that fact increases a defendant's punishment."

Thomas said that "the Court acknowledges the sharp conflict" between Erlinger V. United States and Almendarez-Torres v. United States. However, the Court "properly declines to extend that dubious exception" in Almendarez-Torres v. United States to Erlinger's case.

"I continue to adhere to my view that we should revisit Almendarez-Torres and correct the 'error to which I succumbed' by joining that decision," Thomas added.

He continued: "Each [Supreme Court] Term, criminal defendants file a flood of petitions 'specifically presenting this Court with opportunities to reconsider Almendarez-Torres … Today's decision demonstrates further that '[i]t is time for this Court to do its part' by granting one of those many petitions and overruling Almendarez-Torres."

Newsweek reached out to the Supreme Court via online form for comment from Thomas.