We post news and comment on federal criminal justice issues, focused primarily on trial and post-conviction matters, legislative initiatives, and sentencing issues.
PRIME TIME AT SCOTUS
The Supreme Court is entering the busy season, with cases yet to be decided on compassionate release, § 922(g), venue, appeal waivers and suits for prison violation of the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000, still to go.
Add to that a grant of certiorari last week to examine to what degree guideline commentary should be applied when sentencing criminal defendants — a question that has caused confusion among the circuit courts and led to unreasonable discrepancies in punishments. Specifically, the Court asks whether Stinson v. United States “still correctly states the rule for the deference that courts must give the commentary to the Sentencing Guidelines.”
In Stinson, the Supreme Court held that commentary issued by the United States Sentencing Commission that interprets or explains a guideline is authoritative and binding on federal courts unless it violates the Constitution or a federal statute, or is plainly erroneous.
The Sentencing Commission’s guidelines commentary advises judges on how to calculate an appropriate sentence based on the nature of the crime and the defendant’s criminal history. The commentary clarifies the guidelines through application notes, conclusions and background information. But unlike the Guidelines themselves, the commentary is not subject to Congressional review.
The petitioner claims his sentencing was wrongly calculated to include an enhanced base offense level for unlawful firearm possession by counting a 17-round magazine attached to the firearm as a “large-capacity magazine.”
The sentencing guideline itself applies an enhancement where the firearm has a “large-capacity magazine,” but it does not expressly define what that means.
The Sentencing Commission’s official commentary defines the term to include a semiautomatic firearm that “had attached to it a magazine or similar device that could accept more than 15 rounds of ammunition.” The defendant argues that the commentary improperly expands the scope of the guideline. In his view, the enhancement was intended to target weapons that are exceptionally dangerous or inherently illegal, not industry-standard semiautomatic firearms.
The case will not be argued until the fall and decided early in 2027.
Ohio State University law professor Doug Berman wrote last week that the issue is an important one that transcends gun possession enhancements: I will likely need a series of future posts (and likely also some Substack essays) to fully explain the backstory and possible impacts of this case for federal sentencing law and also perhaps administrative law. For now, I will… wonder[] aloud if the Justices’ ongoing work on the still-pending federal compassionate release cases might have gotten them ever more focused on the law-making activities of the US Sentencing Commission.”
Beaird v. United States, Case No. 25-5343 (certiorari granted April 20, 2026)
Stinson v. United States, 508 U.S. 36 (1993)
Courthouse News Service, Justices to reconsider power of federal sentencing advice (April 20, 2027)
Sentencing Law and Policy, Supreme Court grants cert on long simmering issue of whether federal sentencing guideline commentary should still garner deference from courts (April 20, 2026)
~ Thomas L. Root
