The remedy devised by Justice Breyer's five-member majority had not been proposed by any party, although the Justice Department suggested a form of advisory guidelines as a fallback position to its defense of the system's constitutionality. It was this mandatory aspect of the system that was at issue in the case.

The grid gives the judges a range of possible sentences and the system instructs them to go above that range if they make certain factual findings. The guidelines provide judges with a grid with the offense for which the defendant has been convicted on one axis and the offender's history and other details on another. It is in the appeals courts that its real meaning will emerge, as those courts handle sentencing appeals and build a body of law evaluating the 'reasonableness' of sentences. The decision leaves many unanswered questions and much work for the federal courts of appeals.

On Capitol Hill, some members of Congress made it clear that they were bracing for a fight over how much discretion federal judges should have. But at the end of the day the guidelines will be advisory only, with sentences to be reviewed on appeal for 'reasonableness.' Lawmakers and legal experts predicted Wednesday that the court's decision would renew the struggle between Congress and the judiciary for control over sentencing. Rehnquist - a separate coalition said the problem could be fixed if the guidelines were treated as discretionary rather than mandatory.ДЇrom now on, Justice Breyer said, writing for the majority in this portion of the decision, judges 'must consult' the guidelines and 'take them into account' in imposing sentences. With Justice Ginsburg joining the four justices who dissented from the first part - Stephen G. So it was the second part of the decision - the remedy - that was the surprise and that will shape the continuing debate over sentencing policy. The real question hanging over the case, which the court granted on an expedited basis over the summer and heard in October on the opening day of its new term, was how the justices would solve the problem.

Sente advisory