As the Supreme Court noted in United States v. Grayson, the 'government's interest, as well as the offender's, in avoiding irrationality (in sentencing) is of the highest order.' Authorization of appellate review of sentences would provide an important measure of protection against arbitrary and unreasonable sentences imposed by trial judges. Limiting appellate review of sentences to cases in which the defendant challenges his/her sentence as excessive would be an inadequate, partial response to sentencing disparity. As a matter of policy, the government should be empowered to appeal sentences in order to protect society's interest in adequate sentences for those who have violated its criminal laws and help ensure uniformity in sentences imposed upon similarly situated defendants. The debate over government appeals of sentences has focused on potential consitutional obstacles to government appeals of sentences posed by the double jeopardy clause and the due process clause. In its last term, the Court, in United States v. Raddatz, appears to have dispelled due process objections raised by some opponents of government appeals. During the 1980 fall term, in United States v. DiFrancesco, the Court will address the double jeopardy issues posed by government appeals of sentences. Analysis of the Court's prior double jeopardy decisions and application of the well established purposes underlying the double jeopardy clause demonstrate that government appeals of sentences are a constitutional response to the problem posed by arbitrary and unreasonable sentences. Case notes are included. (Author abstract modified)