In the case of Steven Spears v. United States, 2008, the U.S Supreme Court ruled in favor of Spears, stating that a judge could deviate from federal sentencing guidelines based on policy disagreements with those guidelines. The court held that judges have discretion to impose sentences outside these guidelines if they believe them to be overly harsh or lenient for specific cases. This decision was an affirmation of its previous ruling in Kimbrough v. United States (2007), which allowed judges this flexibility when dealing with crack cocaine offenses specifically. In this particular case, Spears had been convicted for conspiracy and distribution of methamphetamine but argued his sentence was too severe under the existing guideline range.

In the dissenting opinion for Steven Spears v. United States, Justice Samuel Alito argued that the majority's decision to allow judges to impose sentences based on their disagreement with federal sentencing guidelines was a departure from precedent and could lead to unwarranted sentence disparities. He contended that this interpretation of the law would give judges too much discretion in determining sentences, potentially leading to inconsistencies and unfairness in sentencing outcomes across different cases. Furthermore, he expressed concern about potential confusion among lower courts due to lack of clear guidance regarding when it is appropriate for a judge to deviate from these guidelines based on policy disagreements.