United States v. Haymond, 588 U.S. ___ (2019), is a case in which the U.S. Supreme Court struck down the five-year mandatory minimum prison sentence for certain sex offenses committed by federal supervised releases under 18 U.S.C.

[10] The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit, relying heavily on United States v. Booker, excised the offending provision,[11][12] which had been introduced in the Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act of 2006, and whose required application in this case the sentencing judge had found "repugnant.

"[13] Justice Samuel Alito noted in oral argument that this case has the potential to bring down the entire system of federal supervised release.

"[14] On 21 January 2010, Andre Ralph Haymond was convicted of possession of child pornography and sentenced to 38 months imprisonment and 10 years of supervised release.

[19] In oral argument, Justice Sonia Sotomayor expressed due process and jury rights concerns under the Fifth and Sixth Amendments, respectively, noting that both were implicated in the Apprendi v. New Jersey line of cases, including Alleyne v. United States, which requires facts to be proven to a jury beyond a reasonable doubt if they constitute elements of the offense, i.e. if they change the sentencing range by altering the statutory minimum or maximum sentences.

And the Court's cases in Frank, Duncan and Blanton versus City of Las Vegas all point out to the fact that, when you consider the right to jury trial, you look at what the maximum prison sentence could be."

The government said that the case of Morrissey v. Brewer, in which the court held that a jury finding beyond a reasonable doubt is not required for parole revocation, was precisely analogous.