Thomas’ comments were prompted by a recent court ruling in the Erlinger v. United States case. The Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals voted 6-3 in favor of not disturbing a district court sentencing of Paul Erlinger, who was given 15 years in jail for unlawful possession of a firearm — a decision that has significant implications.

However, as the defendant was charged under the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA), the court was forced to issue a minimum sentence of 15 years. The ACCA has specific sentencing guidelines for defendants who have three prior convictions ranging from serious drug offenses to violent felonies.

According to the defendant, the ACCA sentencing only applies to separate occurrences as opposed to a single criminal episode. Erlinger argued that since his string of burglaries occurred in one period, he doesn’t have the three prior convictions required for the ACCA to pass the minimum sentence of 15 years.

However, if the defendant has three prior drug or violent crime convictions, the minimum sentence is raised by the ACCA to 15 years. This is the sentence that Erlinger received.

In a recent court case, Wooden v. In The United States, the Supreme Court set a rule to decide if crimes happened on the same occasion or not.

According to the defendant, the 5th and 6th Amendments entitle him to ask a jury to assess whether his crimes should be considered a single episode or if they occurred over an extended period, a decision he was not granted.

This question could determine how the Supreme Court reviews their previous stance on presenting facts to a jury, other than a prior conviction, that could increase the statutory sentence. However, in the Almendarez-Torres case, the Court held that a judge may find a prior conviction.

Shortly after the decision, the U.S. Government admitted they had made a mistake in the ruling, explaining that the Constitution clearly states that Erlinger has the right to a jury, who will undoubtedly decide whether his felonies were committed on separate occasions.

The Supreme Court’s decision in favor of Erlinger was a significant moment, affirming the importance of juries in determining enhanced sentences according to AOCC guidelines.

They continued, “Because the 5th and 6th 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.”

“Judges may not assume the jury’s fact-finding function for themselves, let alone purport to perform it using a mere preponderance-of-the-evidence standard,” he wrote.

“The Court created a ‘narrow exception’ to the 6th 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,” said Thomas.

However, according to his opinion, the Court has decided to “extend that dubious exception” in Almendarez-Torres v. United States to Erlinger’s case, which could undermine the entire legal system.

He pleaded guilty and admitted that he had been deported, then had unlawfully returned to the US after an earlier deportation that followed three aggravated felonies.

However, the direct court rejected this argument and sentenced Almendarez-Torres to 85 months in prison. Associate Justices that affirmed the conviction and sentence included Judge Thomas.

“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.

In light of Erlinger’s win, Thomas used this as an opportunity to explain, “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.”

However the Court “properly declines to extend that dubious exception” in Almendarez-Torres v. United States to Erlinger’s case.

The Court considers whether a similar law like New York State Rifle & Pistol Assn v. Bruen challenged that it was on the books when the 2nd Amendment was enacted in 1791 or when the 14th Amendment was established in 1868.

“When we start talking about history, I get very annoyed, because in every history, there are exceptions,” Justice Sotomayor said during Wednesday’s session. “The question then becomes how many exceptions defeat the general rule.”

Kavanaugh found historical relevance and said that the Constitution should be followed and interpreted for the case presented to the Court.

He continued: “So then we usually look to history. We might not like it, but unless we’re just making it up, I don’t know where else we’re going to look.”

However, the Deputy of Justice Attorney says that this will be manageable. Erlinger’s lawyer also notes that most criminal cases result in plea deals, meaning that this will be an issue in a “handful of years.”

Chief Justice John Roberts suggests that any problems of jury prejudice could be an issue about past crimes if a jury has convicted a defendant of the current one in a bifurcated trial.