In the case of Charles C. Apprendi, Jr. v. New Jersey, the U.S Supreme Court ruled in favor of Apprendi by a 5-4 vote, stating that under the Sixth Amendment's Due Process Clause and jury trial guarantee, any fact (other than prior convictions) that increases a defendant's maximum penalty must be proven to a jury beyond reasonable doubt. The dispute arose when Apprendi fired several shots into an African-American family’s home and was charged with possession of firearm for unlawful purpose and third-degree offense against property rights with racial bias intent - both crimes punishable by imprisonment for terms between five to ten years under New Jersey law. However, due to his racially motivated actions being treated as separate 'hate crime' factors rather than elements of the offenses he committed; this allowed judges discretionarily increase sentences beyond statutory maxima based on preponderance evidence standard instead which led him receiving 12-year sentence overall – two years above normal maximum limit.

In the dissenting opinion for Apprendi v. New Jersey, Justice Breyer argued that the majority's decision would disrupt a significant amount of legal precedent and create unnecessary confusion in sentencing procedures. He contended that judges have traditionally been allowed to consider various factors when determining sentences, including facts not proven beyond a reasonable doubt at trial. The majority's ruling, he believed, undermined this long-standing practice without sufficient justification. Furthermore, Justice Breyer expressed concern about practical implications of the decision; specifically how it could complicate and potentially undermine efforts to combat bias-motivated crimes through enhanced penalties. He also questioned whether juries were better equipped than judges to make complex determinations about defendants' motivations or other subjective aspects related to crime severity.