Legal Opinion
United States v. Swapp
District Court, D. Utah
Decided July 18, 1988No. 2:88-cr-00006PublishedCited by 5 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
MEMORANDUM OPINION
JENKINS, Chief Judge:
The court, sitting en banc, holds that the Sentencing Reform Act of 1984, which establishes the mechanism by which the new Sentencing Guidelines applicable in this case were promulgated, is unconstitutional because it violates the separation and allocation of governmental powers mandated by the United States Constitution, because it constitutes an unlawful delegation of legislative authority and because it violates the procedural requirements of article I of the Constitution. The court will therefore not apply the guidelines in cases now pending before…
2Cases cited27 opinions
- Marbury v. MadisonSupreme Court of the United States · 1803
- Northern Pipeline Construction Co. v. Marathon Pipe Line Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1982
- Immigration & Naturalization Service v. ChadhaSupreme Court of the United States · 1983
- Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. SawyerSupreme Court of the United States · 1952
- A. L. A. Schechter Poultry Corp. v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1935
22 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by5 opinions
- United States v. SmithDistrict Court, D. Minnesota · 1989
- United States v. SwappDistrict Court, D. Utah · 1989
- United States v. GriffithsDistrict Court, D. Utah · 1988
- United States v. John Timothy Singer, Jonathan Swapp, Addam W. Swapp, and Vickie L. SingerCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 1989
- United States v. SingerCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 1989