In United States v. Haymond, the Supreme Court found one piece of the federal supervised release system to be unconstitutional. This Article discusses three issues that are unresolved in Haymond’s wake. First, it examines whether applying the Apprendi line of cases to the main supervised release system would disrupt that system, concluding that it would not. Second, it considers what the proper remedy should be for the constitutional infirmity identified in Haymond, finding that the provision in question must be struck down due to a previously unexplored double jeopardy issue. Lastly, this Article argues that legislatures can largely achieve the same outcome as the provision at issue in Haymond by allowing defendants—in exchange for receiving shorter prison sentences—to prospectively waive their jury trial rights for supervised release revocations.

Keep Reading