Beaird v. United States (25-5343)

Term: OT 2026
Certiorari granted: 2026-04-20
Court below: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Argument: 2026-10-13

Question Presented

Whether Stinson v. United States, 508 U.S. 36 (1993), still correctly states the rule for the deference that courts must give the commentary to the Sentencing Guidelines.

Scope of review: Review granted limited to this question as framed by the Court. The petition's Second Amendment and interstate-commerce challenges to 18 U.S.C. § 922(g) are not before the Court. On May 6, 2026, the Court invited Anthony J. Dick to brief and argue as amicus curiae in support of the position that Stinson still correctly states the rule.

Our probability estimate is published after oral argument.

Case preview

Should federal courts still defer to the Sentencing Commission's official commentary on the Sentencing Guidelines under the standard set in Stinson v. United States (1993), and if so, how much?

Beaird

The petitioner argues that the Sentencing Reform Act contains no command to defer to commentary, so the ordinary rule applies: courts must independently decide legal questions, and the Act assigns interpretation of the Guidelines to courts rather than the Commission.
The petitioner argues that deference undercuts the Act's procedures for amending Guidelines and raises separation-of-powers problems. In the petitioner's view, it gives the Commission the final interpretive word and lets it shape criminal punishment without adequate oversight.
The petitioner argues that Stinson borrowed Seminole Rock deference from administrative law without justification. The petitioner contends that this doctrine is incompatible with criminal law and that its usual rationales, such as expertise and uniformity, do not fit the Commission.
The petitioner argues in the alternative that any deference must follow Kisor's limits. Because the rule of lenity is one of the traditional interpretive tools courts must exhaust first, the petitioner contends that genuinely ambiguous Guidelines should be read in the defendant's favor rather than deferring to harsher commentary.
The petitioner argues that stare decisis is no obstacle, because the Court need only formalize what its later decisions already show. The petitioner asks the Court to vacate and remand so the court of appeals can interpret the large-capacity-magazine enhancement without deference.

United States

The respondent (the United States) argues that Stinson properly analogized commentary to an agency's interpretation of its own legislative rules. The respondent contends that Stinson adopted Seminole Rock deference in full, not a reflexively deferential caricature of it.
The respondent argues that nothing since 1993 undermines Stinson. In the respondent's view, Kisor reaffirmed Seminole Rock deference, Congress has never repudiated it, and the Guidelines becoming advisory did not reduce the commentary's interpretive role.
The respondent argues that, even within Kisor's limits, commentary often warrants deference. The respondent says it gives concrete guidance on applying Guidelines and typically supplies a reasonable reading where the text is genuinely ambiguous.
The respondent argues that commentary carries Kisor's key markers for controlling weight. The respondent says it is approved by a majority of Commission voting members, draws on the Commission's expertise, and is often adopted alongside Guidelines through the same notice-and-comment and congressional-review procedures.
The respondent argues that the court of appeals wrongly deferred reflexively to commentary without applying Kisor's limits. The respondent asks the Court to vacate and remand, while suggesting the petitioner likely would not ultimately obtain resentencing.

The United States: The United States, as respondent, argues that Stinson remains good law but must be applied with the limits clarified in Kisor v. Wilkie. It contends that the court of appeals erred by deferring reflexively to the commentary, so the judgment should be vacated and the case remanded.

How the case got here

Kendrick Jarrell Beaird was indicted in federal district court on one count of possessing a firearm as a felon under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1); the district court denied his motion to dismiss on Second Amendment grounds, he pleaded guilty, and the court overruled his objection to a guideline enhancement for a 17-round 'large capacity magazine' before entering judgment and sentence on November 7, 2024. On appeal to the Fifth Circuit, he argued that § 922(g)(1) violates the Second Amendment, that the enhancement improperly relied on guideline commentary in light of Kisor v. Wilkie, and that § 922(g)'s interstate commerce nexus exceeds Congress's Commerce Clause power, while acknowledging these issues were foreclosed by circuit precedent. The Fifth Circuit affirmed in an unpublished opinion on May 15, 2025, and the petitioner seeks Supreme Court review of all three questions.

Date not stated — United States District Court: Indictment on a single count of violating 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1)
Date not stated — United States District Court: Motion to dismiss indictment on Second Amendment grounds denied based on Fifth Circuit precedent. Government
Date not stated — United States District Court: Guilty plea entered and accepted
Date not stated — United States District Court: Objection to large capacity magazine guideline enhancement overruled. Government
2024-11-07 — United States District Court: Judgment and sentence entered. Government; defendant convicted and sentenced
2025-05-15 — United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit: Panel affirmed conviction and sentence (unpublished) (2025 WL 1410410). Government
2025-08-11 — Supreme Court of the United States: Petition for certiorari filed
2026-01-09 — Supreme Court of the United States: Brief in opposition filed
2026-04-20 — Supreme Court of the United States: Certiorari granted
2026-08-04 — Supreme Court of the United States: Set for argument on Tuesday, October 13, 2026.

In the news

US Supreme Court Friend of the Court Appointments: Beaird v US — Wansom AI, 2026-08-14
Supreme Court to Reconsider Deference to Sentencing Guidelines Commentary — Baker Donelson, 2026-07-16
Hecker Fink Files Amicus Brief in the U.S. Supreme Court on Behalf of FAMM in Beaird v. United States — Hecker Fink LLP, 2026-07-08
Beaird v. United States Brief: Courts Shouldn't Defer to Agency Interpretations of Their Own Ambiguous Regulations — Cato Institute, 2026-07-07
NCLA to SCOTUS: Chevron Is Gone—Unlawful Stinson Deference Should Be Next to Go — GlobeNewswire, 2026-07-07

Supreme Court docket · All tracked cases

This static summary is shown when JavaScript is disabled. The full interactive analysis loads above.

Probability Estimate

Justice-by-Justice Analysis

Three-Methodology Comparison

Key Arguments

Oral Argument Recording

Case Documents