The US Supreme Court on Tuesday heard oral arguments in a case that asks whether federal judges must adhere to commentary on criminal sentencing guidelines created under the Sentencing Reform Act of 1984.
The case implicates questions over the ongoing clash between judicial and administrative interpretative authority, as the court will likely weigh on the level of interpretative deference federal courts must give judicial agencies.
The case was brought by Kendrick Beaird, who in 2022 pleaded guilty to possession of a firearm after a felony conviction. The trial court applied an enhanced sentence to the offense in line with US Sentencing Commission Guidelines, which state that federal courts should increase sentencing for illegal possession of a firearm “capable of accepting a large capacity magazine.”
The commentary to the guideline explained “large capacity magazine” means a magazine “that can accept more than 15 rounds of ammunition.” Beaird’s magazine at the time of arrest, while empty, could hold 17 rounds of ammunition. Beaird’s attorney’s argued the commentary was not binding authority on the court. However, the trial court held otherwise, citing Supreme Court precedent in Stinson v. US.
The Sentencing Reform Act created the US Sentencing Commission–an agency under the judicial branch tasked with issuing guidelines, policy statements, and commentary on federal criminal sentencing. The statute has led to a confusing legal regime as federal courts wrestle over the extent of the commission’s authority.
In Stinson, the Supreme Court held that guideline “commentary…that interprets or explains a guideline is authoritative unless it violates the Constitution or a federal statute, or is inconsistent with [a plain reading] of that guideline.” Twelve years later, the court issued a ruling in US v. Booker that made “the Guidelines effectively advisory,” leaving Stinson’s ruling in an uncertain posture.
While guidelines are ultimately only advisory, many federal judges continue to rely on them to obtain consistent sentencing outcomes. But uncertainty has led to a circuit split, and federal courts defer as to how they arrive at appropriate sentencing ranges.
During the oral arguments, justices Ketanji Brown Jackson and Sonia Sotomayor appeared to challenge Baird’s position that courts should give guideline commentary little or no deference. Justice Jackson explained:
[T]he guidelines and commentary are…inextricably linked… [S]entencing judges use the Guidelines Manual to do what is essentially a calculation. It’s kind of like math, that the guidelines themselves have certain components to them, and the commentary tells you how those pieces fit together, how you are supposed to take them into account. When you are a judge, you’re using both to reach the right answer.
Other members of the court, particularly Justice Neil Gorsuch, suggested that courts should only be bound by statutory language, not guidelines or commentary.
“[I]t seems to me we first have to acknowledge that the circuits are currently badly split and existing law below is going to be rejected,” Justice Gorsuch said. “[T]he whole point of Booker is that everything’s supposed to be advisory in this area, not mandatory.”
In recent years, the court has curtailed deference offered to agency interpretations of statutory and regulatory language. The case here will likely influence whether cases like Kisor v. Wilkie and Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, which limited deference to executive agency interpretations, will extend to judicial agencies like the Sentencing Commission.
