United States v. Booker’s Empirical Analysis
2004
Citation profile
12,052 federal appellate · 1,009 district · 2,164 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 49,781 later decisions (359 by the Supreme Court) — most recently May 2026 · most notably Gall v. United States (2007), Rita v. United States (2007)
12,052 federal appellate · 1,009 district · 2,164 state decisions — followed in 47 states
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
Appellate journey
reviewedUnited States v. Booker (from Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals)
Relationships
Relies on Apprendi v. New Jersey · Blakely v. Washington · Almendarez-Torres v. United States · In the Matter of Samuel Winship
Cited together with Blakely v. Washington · Apprendi v. New Jersey · United States v. Olano · Almendarez-Torres v. United States · Shepard v. United States
Most-quoted passages
The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 49,781 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[a]ny fact (other than a prior conviction) which is necessary to support a sentence exceeding the maximum authorized by the facts established by a plea of guilty or a jury verdict must be admitted by the defendant or proved to a jury beyond a reasonable doubt.”
854 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“the maximum sentence a judge may impose solely on the basis of the facts reflected in the jury verdict or admitted by the defendant.”
53 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“(1) (A) all acts and omissions committed, aided, abetted, counseled, commanded, induced, procured, or willfully caused by the defendant; and (B) in the case of a jointly undertaken criminal activity (a criminal plan, scheme, endeavor, or enterprise undertaken by the defendant in concert with others, whether or not charged as a conspiracy), all reasonably foreseeable acts and omissions of others in furtherance of the jointly undertaken criminal activity, that occurred during the commission of the offense of conviction, in preparation for that offense, or in the course of attempting to avoid detection or responsibility for that offense; (2) solely with respect to offenses of a character for which [U.S.S.G.] § 3D1.2(d) would require grouping of multiple counts, all acts and omissions described in subdivisions (1)(A) and (1)(B) above that were part of the same course of conduct or common scheme or plan as the offense of conviction; (3) all harm that resulted from the acts and omissions specified in subsections (a)(1) and (a)(2) above, and all harm that was the object of such acts and omissions; and (4) any other information specified in the applicable guideline.”
18 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent
How later courts have treated this case
Across 166 classified citations — whether each later court relied on, limited, or rejected this decision:
- 78explained
- 49cited without characterization
- 39followed
Treatment is classified from each citing court's own sentence. This is a running sample — coverage grows as the classification pass proceeds; overrulings are also tracked authoritatively in the case status.