Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/boundvolumes/529bv.pdf
Page Number: 340

529US1

Unit: $U40

[10-04-01 09:23:11] PAGES PGT: OPIN

Cite as: 529 U. S. 244 (2000)

265

Souter, J., dissenting

I also dissent from the Court’s failure to require discovery
on remand. At the very least, the record gives reason to
expect that discovery could show that the affected class has
been subjected to the risk of increased sentences. Morales
stressed that the question of what changes will be “ ‘of sufﬁ-
cient moment to transgress the constitutional prohibition’
must be a matter of ‘degree,’ ” 514 U. S., at 509 (citation omit-
ted) (emphasis in original). Even if I am wrong and re-
spondent cannot prevail on this record, it is plain that further
discovery is justiﬁed to determine the degree to which the
change at issue here altered sentence lengths.

and Paroles, Parole Decisions (visited Mar. 2, 2000), http://www.pap.
state.ga.us/Decisions.htm.
If we accept the board’s statements, changed
circumstances or new information would rarely make a difference.