In the case of Michael Crosby v. United States in 1992, the Supreme Court ruled that a federal district court has no authority to reject or modify a sentence based on its disagreement with the U.S. Sentencing Commission's policy decisions as reflected in its guidelines for sentencing range. The issue arose when Michael Crosby was convicted of drug trafficking and faced a mandatory minimum sentence under federal law. However, his trial judge disagreed with this guideline and imposed a lesser sentence instead, arguing that it would be unjust to impose such harsh punishment for what he considered minor involvement in drug dealing activities. On appeal by the government, both appellate court and Supreme Court held that judges cannot deviate from these guidelines based solely on their personal disagreement with them.

In the dissenting opinion for Michael Crosby v. United States, Justice Blackmun argued that the majority's decision was a departure from established precedent and an unnecessary expansion of federal power. He contended that Crosby had not been given adequate notice or opportunity to prepare a defense against the new charges brought in his superseding indictment, violating his Fifth Amendment rights. Furthermore, he disagreed with the majority's interpretation of Rule 43 of Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure regarding defendant’s presence at every stage of trial; stating it should apply only when defendants are aware they're facing additional or different charges than those originally presented. Blackmun also criticized the court for failing to consider whether there were less drastic alternatives available before deciding on forfeiture as punishment - such as allowing Crosby time to respond to new allegations or delaying sentencing until after resolution on appeal about validity of superseding indictment.