At oral argument in Beaird v. United States, the Supreme Court appeared unlikely to disturb the deference courts give to the U.S. Sentencing Commission's commentary interpreting federal sentencing guidelines. The case asks whether the 1993 decision in Stinson v. United States remains valid, but several justices indicated that the advisory nature of the guidelines removes the issue from ordinary agency deference disputes.
Chief Justice John Roberts described the deference question as "an academic exercise" because courts are not obliged to follow the commission's recommendations. Justice Amy Coney Barrett asked whether the commission was "pulling a fast one" by putting interpretive material in commentary, while Justice Sonia Sotomayor stressed that application notes provide essential clarity for district judges. The attorney for Kendrick Jarrell Beaird argued the commentary deserves no deference, but the justices showed little interest in revisiting Kisor v. Wilkie or applying Loper Bright to this context.