In the case of Oregon v. Thomas Eugene Ice (2008), the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in favor of Ice, determining that a state cannot impose consecutive sentences without a jury's factual findings. The court held that the Sixth Amendment's right to trial by jury requires that facts increasing beyond-the-maximum sentence must be submitted to a jury and found beyond reasonable doubt. This decision extended the rule from Apprendi v New Jersey (2000) which stated any fact other than prior convictions used to increase an offender’s maximum possible sentence must be proven to a jury beyond reasonable doubt, not decided by judge alone. In this particular case, Mr.Ice was convicted on multiple counts related to burglary and sexual assault; however, his sentencing had been increased based on judicial fact-finding rather than through determination by a jury.

In the dissenting opinion for Oregon v. Thomas Eugene Ice, Justice Antonin Scalia argued that the majority's decision to allow judges rather than juries to make factual determinations that increase a defendant's sentence was inconsistent with previous Supreme Court rulings. He contended that this ruling violated the Sixth Amendment right of defendants to have all facts necessary for their punishment determined by a jury beyond reasonable doubt. Scalia pointed out inconsistencies in how the court interpreted state and federal laws regarding sentencing guidelines, arguing they should be treated similarly under constitutional law principles. The justice also criticized what he saw as judicial overreach into legislative territory, stating it is not within courts' purview to decide whether certain sentencing procedures are more effective or fairer than others; such decisions should be left up to legislatures.