Supreme Court Hears Beaird on Guideline Commentary Deference

The Supreme Court heard argument on October 13, 2026, in Beaird v. United States, No. 25-5343. The case asks whether judges still have to follow the Sentencing Commission's commentary to the guidelines the way they have since 1993. The Court has not ruled yet. Until it does, the current rule stays in place.

What the case is about

The Guidelines Manual has two kinds of text. The guidelines are the rules themselves. The commentary is the set of notes printed under each guideline. The notes explain the rule, give examples, and often define key words.

By statute, a guideline amendment goes out for public comment and is sent to Congress at least 180 days before it takes effect (28 U.S.C. § 994(p) and (x)). Mr. Beaird's lawyer argued that those steps do not apply to commentary.

In Stinson v. United States, 508 U.S. 36 (1993), the Court held that commentary interpreting a guideline is "authoritative unless it violates the Constitution or a federal statute, or is inconsistent with, or a plainly erroneous reading of, that guideline." The Commission quotes that rule in its own policy on commentary, USSG §1B1.7.

In 2019, the Court set limits on the similar rule for federal agencies in Kisor v. Wilkie. Under Kisor, a court defers to an agency's reading of its own rule only if the rule is still truly unclear after the court uses all its normal tools for reading legal text. Since then, lower courts have disagreed about whether Kisor also changes Stinson. At argument, Justice Gorsuch said the circuits are "badly split."

On April 20, 2026, the Court agreed to decide one question: whether Stinson "still correctly states the rule for the deference that courts must give the commentary to the Sentencing Guidelines" (docket).

Three positions at argument

The argument transcript shows three different answers.

• Mr. Beaird argued that courts should give the commentary no deference at all. His lawyer said the lower courts were wrong to rely on the commentary to the firearms guideline, §2K2.1. If the Court disagrees, he asked for at least the Kisor test.
• The United States filed in support of vacating the judgment below. It argued that Stinson plus Kisor means the Kisor test applies to commentary. It also said that, in most cases, the commentary would still guide how a guideline is read.
• A lawyer the Court appointed defended Stinson as it stands. Because neither side was defending Stinson, the Court invited him to argue for it.

Several justices asked whether the question matters as much now that the guidelines are advisory under United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005). Even so, judges still have to calculate the guideline range correctly first, and the range is often where a sentence starts.

Why it matters for your case

A lot of guideline math is driven by commentary. Definitions, examples and "how to count" rules often appear only in the notes. If the Court limits Stinson, some of those notes could stop controlling in some cases. That could change the range in cases where the guideline itself is clear and the note reads it differently.

If a case turns on a word that is defined only in the commentary, talk with the lawyer about whether to raise the issue so it is not lost. A decision in Beaird is expected by the end of the Court's current term. Whether it helps any one person will depend on the guideline, the note and the record in that case.

Facing a federal sentence? Book a consultation and tell us what happened. We’ll listen, tell you whether we can help, and explain what comes next.