Keywords
supervised release, Article III judges
Abstract
This Note examines the constitutionality of allowing a probation officer the discretion to either impose or forego particular conditions of a supervised release, depending on the officer's assessment of the defendant's needs. Two federal Circuits allow probation officers to have such discretion; the majority have held that such arrangements violate Article III of the Constitution, which makes imposing a sentence an exclusively judicial task. In this Note, the author investigates the history of delegation of judicial function to non Article-III officers and examines the split in federal courts over this particular issue, ultimately advocating for the adoption of the so-called "pragmatic approach" used by the minority circuits allowing such arrangements.
Recommended Citation
Eugenia Schraa,
Delegational Delusions: Why Judges Should Be Able To Delegate Reasonable Authority Over Stated Supervised Release Conditions,
38 Fordham Urb. L.J. 899
(2011).
Available at: https://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/ulj/vol38/iss3/11