In the case of William Joseph Harris v. United States in 2001, the Supreme Court ruled that a judge can consider facts not presented to a jury when determining sentencing guidelines for a convicted individual. The defendant, William Joseph Harris, was found guilty of being a felon in possession of firearms and received an enhanced sentence based on his prior convictions which were not disclosed during trial but considered by the judge at sentencing. He appealed this decision arguing that any fact used to increase his sentence should have been determined by the jury beyond reasonable doubt as per Apprendi v New Jersey (1999). However, the Supreme Court upheld his sentence stating that under federal law judges are allowed to determine factors increasing sentences within statutory limits without violating constitutional rights. This ruling clarified that while juries decide guilt or innocence based on facts related to charges, judges may use additional information when deciding appropriate punishment within legal maximums.

In the dissenting opinion for William Joseph Harris v. United States, Justice Breyer argued that the majority's decision violated the Fifth and Sixth Amendments of the Constitution by allowing a judge to increase a defendant's sentence based on facts not presented to or found by a jury. He contended that this approach undermined basic principles of justice, as it allowed judges rather than juries to make critical factual determinations affecting sentencing outcomes. Furthermore, he expressed concern about potential inconsistencies in sentencing decisions due to varying interpretations of what constitutes "relevant conduct" under federal guidelines. Ultimately, Justice Breyer believed that any fact used to enhance a sentence should be treated as an element of an offense and thus determined by a jury beyond reasonable doubt.