In the case of Victor A. Rita v. United States, 2006, the U.S Supreme Court upheld a federal sentencing guideline that allowed judges to increase sentences based on factors not considered by a jury or admitted by a defendant. The court ruled in favor of the government with a 8-1 majority decision, affirming that such guidelines were advisory and did not violate the Sixth Amendment's right to trial by jury. Victor Rita was convicted for perjury during grand jury proceedings related to an investigation into illegal firearm sales and received an enhanced sentence due to his prior military service record and other uncharged criminal conduct which had been taken into account at sentencing but not proven beyond reasonable doubt at trial.

In the dissenting opinion for Victor A. Rita v. United States, Justice Antonin Scalia, joined by Justices David Souter and Clarence Thomas, argued that the majority's decision to uphold a sentencing guideline as reasonable was flawed because it failed to provide any meaningful standard of review. They contended that this lack of clarity could lead to arbitrary decisions in future cases. The dissenters also criticized the majority for deferring too much authority to the U.S Sentencing Commission instead of exercising its own judgment on what constitutes a reasonable sentence under federal law. Furthermore, they expressed concern about potential violations of defendants' Sixth Amendment rights if judges were allowed wide discretion in determining sentences based on facts not found by juries or admitted by defendants.