The Supreme Court heard arguments in Beaird v. United States on October 13, focusing on whether courts should continue deferring to the U.S. Sentencing Commission’s commentary on federal sentencing guidelines. The case centers on the 1993 Stinson v. United States decision, which established that such commentary is authoritative unless it conflicts with the Constitution, a federal statute, or is a plainly erroneous reading of the guidelines.
The justices appeared reluctant to overturn Stinson, despite recent challenges to the doctrine of agency deference. The 2019 Kisor v. Wilkie decision introduced limitations on deference to agencies’ interpretations of their regulations, requiring that the regulation must be genuinely ambiguous. However, the court seemed uninterested in revisiting Kisor in this case, with Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Brett Kavanaugh questioning its relevance to the advisory nature of the sentencing guidelines.
The advisory nature of guidelines and the role of commentary
Several justices highlighted that the sentencing guidelines are advisory, not mandatory. This distinction, they argued, removes the case from the typical context of agency deference. Roberts described the deference question as an “academic exercise”, suggesting courts could simply interpret the guidelines without relying on commentary. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, a former Sentencing Commission vice chair, emphasized that commentary binds the commission’s advice, not the courts.
Justice Amy Coney Barrett raised concerns about the notice-and-comment process for commentary, asking if the commission might use it to bypass stricter guidelines. Kevin Page, attorney for Kendrick Jarrell Beaird, denied this, arguing that Congress never explicitly authorized the commission to issue commentary. He contended that the commentary deserves no deference.
Discussion also touched on practical implications. Justice Sonia Sotomayor pointed out that without commentary, terms like “large capacity magazine” in Section 2K2.1 could lead to confusion for judges. Justice Samuel Alito echoed this, questioning how judges would define such terms without deference to the commission’s policy calls. Page suggested relying on the text and structure of the guidelines, but Alito remained skeptical of this approach.
Page argued that Congress had not granted such authority. This lack of explicit authorization, he contended, meant the commentary should receive no deference.
Page denied this, emphasizing his argument focused on the absence of congressional authorization for the commentary.
Related Post: Supreme Court pauses ruling on political ad rates dispute
Justices also discussed the practical implications of removing deference to the commentary. Sotomayor highlighted the potential for confusion in interpreting terms like “large capacity magazine” without the guidance provided by the commentary.
The discussion touched on stare decisis, with Justice Elena Kagan and Sotomayor pressing Page on whether his view would require overruling Williams v. United States. Page argued Williams should be limited to specific policy statements referenced by Congress, but the justices appeared unconvinced.
The government, represented by Eric J. Feigin, defended the view that Stinson’s rule should be understood in light of Kisor v. Wilkie, but expressed willingness to accept a ruling that the guidelines do not need to follow Kisor. The court’s decision will likely be narrowly tailored, focusing on the advisory nature of the guidelines and leaving Stinson’s core principles undisturbed.
The amicus curiae, Anthony Dick, argued for more stringent limitations on agency deference, citing Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo as further limiting deference to agencies’ interpretations. However, the justices appeared disinclined to revisit Kisor or broaden the scope of their ruling beyond sentencing guidelines.
Justices’ Stance on Revisiting Kisor and Agency Deference
Stinson relied on silence being enough to be an implicit delegation … of interpretive authority and that their ambiguity is the appropriate trigger, both of which we’ve since rejected in Loper Bright. However, no other justice expressed support for revisiting Kisor or adopting Gorsuch’s position. The focus remained on the advisory nature of the sentencing guidelines and whether this distinguishes them from the typical agency deference framework.
Justices Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor challenged the argument that Williams v. United States could be narrowly interpreted to limit deference only to specific policy statements referenced by Congress. Kevin Page, representing Kendrick Jarrell Beaird, contended that Williams should be viewed in this limited way, but the justices appeared unpersuaded by this interpretation.
