[The Feeney Amendment] instructed the U.S. Sentencing Commission to change its policies to reduce downward departures. It also required federal appellate courts to conduct fresh reviews of all downward departures by district court judges. Most controversially, it established a system for reporting to Congress how individual federal judges handled sentencing.

That last mandate to monitor downward departures was particularly worrisome to judges, who saw it as an intimidation tactic and a serious encroachment on the independence of the judiciary. Chief Justice William R. Rehnquist and the U.S. Judicial Conference publicly opposed the Feeney provisions. Despite strong concerns expressed by Democratic leaders, the Protect Act passed Congress overwhelmingly.

Despite pleas from all sectors for Congress to move slowly, it has been widely anticipated that Congress would react to Booker by legislating mandatory minimum penalties for every offense. (As we surmised here, the legislation already may have been drafted.)

Congressman Feeney is unlikely to take this defeat lying down. In fact, his comments while the decision was pending, show his intended course:

"If they come down and undermine the whole way sentencing guidelines work, the only option Congress may have is to enact enhanced mandatory sentences," Feeney warned. "If the courts throw out the sentencing wholesale, we will have a really big battle."

Hopefully, cooler heads will prevail. For more on Booker's effect on the Feeney Amendment, see Sentencing Law and Policy's post. Mope details on the Feeney Amendment are here .