In the 1993 case United States v. Ralph Stuart Granderson, Jr., the U.S. Supreme Court ruled on a matter concerning drug trafficking and sentencing guidelines. The defendant, Ralph Stuart Granderson Jr., was convicted of conspiracy to distribute cocaine base (crack) and received a sentence based on an estimated quantity of drugs involved in his operation. However, he appealed this decision arguing that it violated his due process rights because the quantity had not been determined by a jury beyond reasonable doubt but instead by preponderance of evidence standard during sentencing phase which is less stringent than "beyond reasonable doubt". The Supreme Court upheld his conviction and sentence stating that when determining sentences for drug offenses under federal law, judges can estimate the amount of drugs involved using any information they have available including hearsay evidence or estimates from co-conspirators as long as they believe it's reliable.

In the dissenting opinion for United States v. Ralph Stuart Granderson, Jr., Justice Blackmun argued that the majority's interpretation of 18 U.S.C § 924(c) was too narrow and failed to consider Congress' intent behind enacting this law. He contended that Congress intended to impose harsher penalties on those who use firearms in relation to drug trafficking crimes, regardless of whether they actively used or merely possessed these weapons during their offenses. Therefore, he believed that Granderson should have been subjected to a mandatory five-year sentence as per Section 924(c), even though he only traded drugs for guns rather than using them in an active manner during his crime. The justice also criticized the majority's reliance on legislative history and statutory language while ignoring broader policy considerations.