The Supreme Court heard argument on Tuesday, October 13, in Beaird v. United States, a case about how much weight federal judges must give the official commentary that comes with the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines. Most of the justices sounded reluctant to change the long standing rule, SCOTUSblog's argument analysis found.
That rule comes from Stinson v. United States, a unanimous 1993 decision. It treats the commentary as authoritative unless it violates the Constitution or a federal statute, or is inconsistent with or a plainly erroneous reading of the guideline it explains.
The case behind the question
In October 2022, officers saw Kendrick Jarrell Beaird point a gun at another person inside an abandoned fast food restaurant, according to SCOTUSblog's preview of the case. His Glock had a magazine that could hold 17 rounds. Because he had four prior felony convictions, he pleaded guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm.
The guideline for gun crimes recommends a higher sentence when the offense involves a semiautomatic firearm capable of accepting a "large capacity magazine." The guideline text does not define that term. The commentary does, as a magazine that holds more than 15 rounds. Relying on it, the trial judge raised Beaird's guideline range. He was sentenced to 72 months in prison followed by three years of supervised release, the National Constitution Center reported, and the Fifth Circuit affirmed.
The judge also said that even if the range had been calculated wrongly, the court "would have imposed the same sentence." Defense lawyers will recognize that move. It is often what keeps a sentencing error from producing a new hearing.
Three sides at the lectern
The argument was unusual. The Justice Department agreed that the Court's 2019 decision in Kisor v. Wilkie, which narrowed deference to agencies' readings of their own rules, also limits Stinson. It asked for the case to be sent back. So the Court appointed a lawyer, Anthony Dick, to defend the lower court's judgment.
Kevin Page, arguing for Beaird, took the hardest line. "The proper rule for deference to guideline commentary is no deference," he said. Dick urged the opposite. "Stinson should be upheld. There's no reason to create the chaos that would come from overruling it," he told the justices. Deputy Solicitor General Eric Feigin argued for the government.
How the justices sounded
Chief Justice John Roberts said he "just don't see" how deferring to nonbinding commentary from a judicial branch agency has much to do with Loper Bright, the 2024 decision that ended deference to agencies' readings of statutes. He suggested the dispute was largely academic because the guidelines are only advisory. Justice Brett Kavanaugh agreed.
Justice Sonia Sotomayor warned that throwing out the commentary would leave trial judges in "a sea of confusion." Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson said Page's approach reflected "a fundamental misunderstanding of how the manual works," because the guidelines and the commentary are linked. Justice Samuel Alito asked how judges could define a large capacity magazine at all without deferring to what he described as a policy call by the commission.
Justice Neil Gorsuch was the most receptive to Beaird. "The whole point of Booker is that everything's supposed to be advisory in this area, not mandatory," he said, according to the official argument transcript. He also cautioned that "the more you make these things binding, you're creeping up to a Booker problem again."
What comes next
SCOTUSblog's analysis predicts the Court will leave Stinson essentially intact and keep any ruling limited to the advisory guidelines. A decision could come at any point before the term ends next summer.
For people facing federal charges, the stakes are concrete. The guidelines remain the starting point at federal sentencing, and the commentary can decide whether an enhancement applies. Sentencing law has long shaped how defendants weigh their options, from guideline ranges to the mandatory minimums that helped break the old mob. It is the kind of case the Two Taps legal panel takes apart on the show.
Two Taps News stories summarize reporting and the analysis discussed on Two Taps and Friends. They are not legal advice. Read our standards.
