In an earlier time, convicted defendants were regularly sentenced to long prison terms with eligibility for parole well before their time was up. Parole came with conditions (like, e.g., don't go back, Jack, and do it again). Parole could be revoked for violation of the conditions, and the violators could be sent back to prison. Because he was going back to serve out some portion of his original sentence for the original crime, the violation did not have to be found by a jury or proved beyond a reasonable doubt.
Congress abolished parole in the federal system, and many sentences now have periods of "supervised release" tacked on as authorized by statute. For persons convicted of possession of child pornography (18 U.S.C. § 2252), the term can be anywhere from five years to life under 18 U.S.C. § 3583(k). Revocation is mandatory upon a new violation, and the minimum new term is five years.
Is this mode of proceeding constitutional under the cases of Apprendi v. New Jersey, Blakely v. Washington, and subsequent cases?
The Tenth Circuit declared the statute unconstitutional in the case of Andre Hammond, a viewer of child pornography who is probably doing it again but who is covering his tracks well enough that a violation was not proved beyond a reasonable doubt. He had deleted his browsing history the day before the probation officers seized his smart phone. I wouldn't be surprised if he deleted it every day.
The Solicitor General petitioned for the Supreme Court to review the Tenth Circuit's decision. On Friday, the Supreme Court took the case up: United States v. Hammond, No. 17-1672.
This is an area where the Supreme Court does not divide on the usual ideological lines. Throughout the Apprendi line of cases, the late Justice Scalia was leading the charge, believing that use of judge-found "sentencing factors" often violated the constitutional right to jury trial as originally understood. That put him on the defense side. Policy wonk Justice Breyer was the leading defender of the mid-80s sentencing reforms, which put him on the prosecution side in these cases.
Watch for oral argument in a few months and a decision before the end of the term in late June or early July.
Predictions? Isn't the "originalist" view likely to come down on the defense side?
If so, that should be 3 votes for the defendant from Justice Gorsuch, Kavanaugh and Thomas. Justices Kagan and Sotomayor have been pretty pro-Blakely, so I think I see at last five votes against the gov if the originalists are true to their word.