Oregon v. Thomas Eugene Ice
In a case over sentencing for multiple offenses, the Court held that the Sixth Amendment does not prevent states from having judges, rather than juries, find the facts needed to impose consecutive rather than concurrent sentences.· AI-written
555 U.S. 160 · No. 07-901 · 2008 term · Roberts Court
Decided Jan 14, 2009 · argued Oct 14, 2008
Criminal procedure · Jury trial
Majority opinion: Ruth Ginsburg
The voteMajorityDissent
5–45 in the majority, 4 in dissent
4 dissents (5–4)
Reversed and remanded. Oregon won.
What this ruling means
Reversed and remanded: the Supreme Court overturned the decision of the Oregon Supreme Court and sent the case back to that court for further proceedings that follow the Supreme Court’s ruling.
Oregon was the petitioner, the side that asked the Supreme Court to review the case. “Won” means the Court gave that side the result it asked for.
From the Supreme Court Database. A justice who agreed with the result but not the reasoning counts in the majority.
Summary
The opening of the case’s Wikipedia article: what the case was about and what the Court held.
Oregon v. Ice, 555 U.S. 160 (2009), was a legal case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution does not inhibit states from assigning to judges, rather than juries, the finding of facts necessary to the imposition of consecutive, rather than concurrent, sentences for multiple offenses.
Ice, a supervisor of an apartment complex, twice entered a residence and, on each occasion, touched the breasts and vagina of an 11-year-old girl. For each incident, a jury found him guilty of first-degree burglary for entering with the intent to commit sexual assault, as well as two counts of sexual abuse.
The statute under which Ice was sentenced, Oregon Revised Statutes 137.123, generally provided for concurrent sentences. However, it allowed for consecutive sentencing when the offenses did not arise from the same course of conduct. The statute also allowed for such sentencing when the offense was indicative of a willingness to commit more than one offense, or the offense caused or created a risk of greater or qualitatively different harm to the victim.
The trial judge found that Ice's conduct satisfied these criteria and ordered that his sentences for the two burglaries and the two sexual assaults, in which he touched the girl's vagina, to be served consecutively. The judge allowed the two sexual assault sentences for touching the girl's breasts to be served concurrently. Thus, the judge's action nearly quadrupled his sentence from 7.5 years to over 28 years.
Data notes
The text is Wikipedia’s (CC BY-SA 4.0), matched to the case by its citation, docket number or name and year, and is not checked against the opinion. The site keeps the article’s opening section, ending on its last full sentence. The one-sentence summary under the title is the Decisions list’s: Wikipedia’s own ruling sentence, or, tagged “AI-written”, one Claude wrote from this opening.
How the justices voted
Each justice who took part, placed by their Martin–Quinn ideology score for the 2008 term. Filled: the 5 in the majority. Hollow: the 4 in dissent. Colour is the party of the president who appointed them.
Majority(5)
Ruth GinsburgWrote the majority opinion
John StevensJoined the majority
Stephen BreyerJoined the majority
Anthony KennedyJoined the majority
Samuel AlitoJoined the majority
Dissent(4)
Antonin ScaliaWrote a dissent
David SouterJoined a dissent
John RobertsJoined a dissent
Clarence ThomasJoined a dissent
Data notes
Each justice’s vote and what they wrote are from the justice-centered file of the Supreme Court Database. “Wrote a concurrence” means the justice sided with the majority and wrote separately; a justice who dissented in part is counted on the side they took overall. A justice who wrote nothing is listed as joining their side.
Positions are each justice’s Martin–Quinn score for the case’s term, the same scores as the Ideology page: negative is more liberal, positive more conservative. A score sums up a justice’s votes across the whole term, so it says where they usually sit, not why they voted as they did here. The median line is the Court’s median justice that term.
The parties
Who brought the case to the Court, who answered it, and how it got there.
- Petitioner
- OregonState (Oregon)
- Respondent
- Thomas Eugene IcePerson convicted of crime
- Reached the Court by
- Certiorari (the Court chose to hear it)
- Why it was taken
- State courts had ruled differently
Data notes
The names are the two sides of the case’s title. The description under each is the Supreme Court Database’s category for that party, in its own wording. The petitioner is the side that asked the Supreme Court to review the decision below. “Why it was taken” appears only when the majority opinion says lower courts disagreed or were unsure about the question; reasons that would fit any case (“to resolve the question presented”, “an important question”) are left out.
The law at issue
The law the Court was asked to apply, and the kind of power it used to decide.
- Provision
- Sixth Amendment (right to trial by jury)
- Kind of law
- Constitutional Amendment
- Decided by
- Federal common law; Judicial review (state level)
Data notes
The Supreme Court Database codes the main constitutional provision, statute or court rule each case turned on, and the basis of the decision: judicial review of a federal or state law, interpreting a statute, supervising the lower courts, and so on. A case can rest on more than one. “Overruled” counts only where the majority opinion says so.
Timeline
What happened at the Court and how the case got there, newest first.
- Jan 14, 2009DecidedDecided · Decided 5–4: reversed and remanded. Oregon won.
- Oct 14, 2008ArguedArgued · Oral argument before the Court.
- Not datedTaken upTaken up · The Supreme Court agreed to hear the case (certiorari). State courts had ruled differently.
- Not datedCourt belowCourt below · Decided by the Oregon Supreme Court: reversed, with a dissent.
- Not datedBeganBegan · The case began in the Oregon trial court.
Data notes
From the Supreme Court Database: the court the case began in, the court whose decision the Supreme Court reviewed and what that court did, how the case came to the Court, and the dates of argument and decision. The database does not date the steps in the lower courts. Court names are the database’s.
Other decisions on the same issue
38 other argued cases since 1946 on jury trial, newest first.
- Perttu v. Richards145 S. Ct. 1793Jun 18, 2025 · 145 S. Ct. 1793Criminal procedure5–45–4 band
- Ramos v. LouisianaLandmark · Other criminal sentences140 S. Ct. 1390Apr 20, 2020 · 140 S. Ct. 1390Criminal procedureLandmark · Other criminal sentences6–36–3 band
- United States v. Haymond139 S. Ct. 2369Jun 26, 2019 · 139 S. Ct. 2369Criminal procedure5–45–4 band
- Hurst v. Florida577 U.S. 92Jan 12, 2016 · 577 U.S. 92Criminal procedure8–18–1 band
- Deborah K. Johnson, Acting Warden, Petitioner v. Tara Sheneva Williams568 U.S. 289Feb 20, 2013 · 568 U.S. 289Criminal procedure9–0Unanimous band
- William Joseph Harris v. United States536 U.S. 545Jun 24, 2002 · 536 U.S. 545Criminal procedure5–45–4 band
- Ray A. Lewis v. United States518 U.S. 322Jun 24, 1996 · 518 U.S. 322Criminal procedure7–27–2 band
- Herbert Markman and Positek, Inc. v. Westview Instruments, Inc. and Althon Enterprises, Inc.517 U.S. 370Apr 23, 1996 · 517 U.S. 370Criminal procedure9–0Unanimous band
- Guy Wooddell, Jr. v. International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local 71, et al.502 U.S. 93Dec 4, 1991 · 502 U.S. 93Criminal procedure8–0Unanimous band
- Chauffeurs, Teamsters and Helpers Local No. 391 v. Terry et al.494 U.S. 558Mar 20, 1990 · 494 U.S. 558Criminal procedure6–36–3 band
- John S. Lytle v. Household Manufacturing, Inc., dba Schwitzer Turbochargers494 U.S. 545Mar 20, 1990 · 494 U.S. 545Criminal procedure9–0Unanimous band
- Granfinanciera, S. A., et al. v. Nordberg, Creditor Trustee for the Estate of Chase & Sanborn Corp., fka, General Coffee Corp.492 U.S. 33Jun 23, 1989 · 492 U.S. 33Criminal procedure6–36–3 band
- Blanton et al. v. City of North Las Vegas, Nevada489 U.S. 538Mar 6, 1989 · 489 U.S. 538Criminal procedure9–0Unanimous band
- McDonough Power Equipment, Inc. v. Greenwood et al.464 U.S. 548Jan 18, 1984 · 464 U.S. 548Criminal procedure9–0Unanimous band
- Lehman, Secretary of the Navy v. Nakshian453 U.S. 156Jun 26, 1981 · 453 U.S. 156Criminal procedure5–45–4 band
- Burch et al. v. Louisiana441 U.S. 130Apr 17, 1979 · 441 U.S. 130Criminal procedure9–0Unanimous band
- Ballew v. Georgia435 U.S. 223Mar 21, 1978 · 435 U.S. 223Criminal procedure9–0Unanimous band
- Lorillard, a Division of Loew's Theatres, Inc. v. Pons434 U.S. 575Feb 22, 1978 · 434 U.S. 575Criminal procedure8–0Unanimous band
- Atlas Roofing Co., Inc. v. Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission et al.430 U.S. 442Mar 23, 1977 · 430 U.S. 442Criminal procedure8–0Unanimous band
- Ludwig v. Massachusetts427 U.S. 618Jun 30, 1976 · 427 U.S. 618Criminal procedure5–45–4 band
- Muniz et al. v. Hoffman, Regional Director, National Labor Relations Board422 U.S. 454Jun 25, 1975 · 422 U.S. 454Criminal procedure5–45–4 band
- Pernell v. Southall Realty416 U.S. 363Apr 24, 1974 · 416 U.S. 363Criminal procedure9–0Unanimous band
- Curtis v. Loether et al.415 U.S. 189Feb 20, 1974 · 415 U.S. 189Criminal procedure9–0Unanimous band
- Chaffin v. Stynchcombe, Sheriff412 U.S. 17May 21, 1973 · 412 U.S. 17Criminal procedure5–45–4 band
- Apodaca et al. v. OregonLandmark · Other criminal sentences406 U.S. 404May 22, 1972 · 406 U.S. 404Criminal procedureLandmark · Other criminal sentences5–45–4 band
- Johnson v. Louisiana406 U.S. 356May 22, 1972 · 406 U.S. 356Criminal procedure5–45–4 band
- Baldwin v. New York399 U.S. 66Jun 22, 1970 · 399 U.S. 66Criminal procedure5–36–3 band
- United States v. Reynolds et ux.397 U.S. 14Feb 24, 1970 · 397 U.S. 14Criminal procedure6–27–2 band
- Ross et al., Trustees v. Bernhard et al.396 U.S. 531Feb 2, 1970 · 396 U.S. 531Criminal procedure5–36–3 band
- Dyke et al. v. Taylor Implement Manufacturing Co., Inc.391 U.S. 216May 20, 1968 · 391 U.S. 216Criminal procedure7–27–2 band
- Duncan v. LouisianaLandmark · Other areas391 U.S. 145May 20, 1968 · 391 U.S. 145Criminal procedureLandmark · Other areas7–27–2 band
- Baxstrom v. Herold, State Hospital Director383 U.S. 107Feb 23, 1966 · 383 U.S. 107Criminal procedure9–0Unanimous band
- Meeker et ux. v. Ambassador Oil Corp.375 U.S. 160Dec 2, 1963 · 375 U.S. 160Criminal procedure9–0Unanimous band
- Simler v. Conner372 U.S. 221Feb 18, 1963 · 372 U.S. 221Criminal procedure9–0Unanimous band
- Dairy Queen, Inc., v. Wood, U.S. District Judge, et al.369 U.S. 469Apr 30, 1962 · 369 U.S. 469Criminal procedure7–0Unanimous band
- Magenau, Administrator, v. Aetna Freight Lines, Inc.360 U.S. 273Jun 15, 1959 · 360 U.S. 273Criminal procedure6–36–3 band
- Beacon Theatres, Inc., v. Westover, U.S. District Judge, et al.359 U.S. 500May 25, 1959 · 359 U.S. 500Criminal procedure5–36–3 band
- United States v. Moore et ux.340 U.S. 616Mar 26, 1951 · 340 U.S. 616Criminal procedure5–45–4 band
Data notes
Every other orally argued case with a clear vote, from the 1946 term on, that the Supreme Court Database files under the same issue as this one. The database gives each case one issue from a list of about 270 (abortion, search and seizure of vehicles, the death penalty, and so on), whatever law it turned on.
Official record
Read the full opinion on Justia, the argument audio on Oyez and Wikipedia. Case data from the Supreme Court Database, Version 2026 Release 01, through the 2025 term.