In the case of John Bruce Hubbard v. United States (1994), the Supreme Court ruled that a defendant's prior convictions could be used to enhance their sentence under federal law, even if those convictions were not presented during trial. The court held that such use did not violate the Sixth Amendment right to a jury trial because sentencing factors are traditionally considered by judges, not juries. This decision was based on an interpretation of 21 U.S.C §841(b)(1)(A) which provides for enhanced penalties for drug trafficking offenses when the offender has previous felony drug convictions. Hubbard had been convicted and sentenced without his prior conviction being submitted to a jury or proven beyond reasonable doubt at his trial; he argued this violated his constitutional rights but was overruled by both lower courts and ultimately, in a unanimous opinion written by Justice Blackmun, by the Supreme Court.

In the dissenting opinion for Hubbard v. United States, Justice Thomas, joined by Justices Stevens and Souter, argued that the majority's interpretation of 18 U.S.C §1001 was overly broad and inconsistent with its historical context. They contended that this statute should only apply to false statements made within the executive branch's jurisdiction rather than extending it to judicial proceedings as well. The dissenters pointed out that Congress had not intended such an expansive application when they enacted this law in 1948; instead, it was meant to protect government agencies from being misled or manipulated during their administrative duties. Furthermore, they noted other existing laws specifically designed to handle perjury or fraud in court settings which would be more appropriate for dealing with Mr. Hubbard’s case.