The United States v. R.L.C., 1991, is a Supreme Court case that addressed the sentencing of juveniles under federal law. The defendant, R.L.C., was a juvenile who had committed several burglaries on an Indian reservation and was prosecuted in federal court due to the location of his crimes. The issue at hand was how to interpret the Federal Juvenile Delinquency Act's provision for maximum sentencing, which stated that no juvenile could be sentenced to more than "the maximum term of imprisonment that would be authorized if the juvenile had been tried and convicted as an adult." The question arose whether this referred to statutory maximum sentences or those adjusted by U.S Sentencing Guidelines for adults. In a unanimous decision, it ruled in favor of R.L.C., stating that "maximum" refers only to statutory limits set by Congress rather than those reduced by other factors such as criminal history or acceptance of responsibility.

In the dissenting opinion for United States v. R.L.C., Justice Scalia, joined by Justices O'Connor and Thomas, disagreed with the majority's interpretation of "maximum term of imprisonment" in 18 U.S.C §5037(c). They argued that it should refer to the maximum sentence applicable to a juvenile tried as an adult under federal law rather than state law. The dissenters contended that this reading was more consistent with Congress' intent when drafting the Federal Juvenile Delinquency Act (FJDA), which aimed at treating juveniles less harshly than adults. They also pointed out inconsistencies in applying state laws due to variations among states regarding age limits for trying defendants as adults or juveniles. Furthermore, they criticized the majority's reliance on legislative history instead of clear statutory text and expressed concerns about potential constitutional issues arising from sentencing disparities between federal and state jurisdictions.