Washington, D.C., July 07, 2026 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) — No one should spend more time in federal prison as a result of agency commentary that expands punishment beyond what Congress authorized. Yet for over 30 years, the Supreme Court’s unconstitutional deference doctrine established in Stinson v. U.S. has required courts to defer to the U.S. Sentencing Commission’s commentary to the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines in determining a criminal defendant’s sentence. Unlike amendments to the Guidelines, which require notice and comment and review by Congress, the Sentencing Commission creates and updates the commentary by itself. By mandating deference to the commentary—even when it expands or alters the Guidelines—Stinson deference can result in harsher sentences without public input or Congressional review.
In Relentless Inc. v. Dept. of Commerce, the New Civil Liberties Alliance helped secure the Supreme Court’s decision to overturn Chevron deference to agencies’ interpretations of ambiguous federal statutes. NCLA filed an amicus curiae brief today in Beaird v. U.S. that asks the Supreme Court to overturn Stinson as well, arguing that the same fundamental principle applies: courts must exercise their own independent judgment when interpreting the law. This core constitutional function is especially vital when the consequence of agency deference is more prison time.
When judges employ Stinson deference, they effectively allow the Sentencing Commission to increase penalties outside the process Congress devised. That arrangement violates the rule of lenity, under which courts must interpret ambiguous criminal laws in defendants’ favor. It also deprives defendants of due process of law by biasing courts against them, and it prevents courts from fully exercising the judicial independence enshrined in Article III of the Constitution. These were some of the same problems that NCLA raised in overturning Chevron deference.
In 2019, the Supreme Court held in Kisor v. Wilkie that courts may not defer to agencies’ interpretations of their own rules unless they first exhaust their tools of statutory interpretation and determine that a rule is genuinely ambiguous—explicitly rejecting the premise that courts may automatically defer to an agency without exercising any independent judgment. Yet six circuits—including the Fifth Circuit, which decided Mr. Beaird’s case—continue to apply Stinson’s reflexive form of deference to Sentencing Commission commentary. As a result, how much liberty a criminal defendant loses—and how long they spend in prison—can turn on the happenstance of geography: which federal circuit governs their sentencing. The Supreme Court should end this arbitrary disparity and reaffirm the basic principle that courts must interpret the law.
NCLA released the following statements:
“The Supreme Court agreed with NCLA that Chevron deference has no place in our constitutional system for a simple reason: agencies do not get to say what the law is—courts do. That bedrock principle does not vanish in the criminal courtroom. If anything, it matters all the more when the stakes are measured in the years a person might spend behind bars.”
— Casey Norman, Litigation Counsel, NCLA
“There is no principled or constitutionally grounded reason for courts to afford reflexive, controlling weight to the Sentencing Commission’s interpretations of its own Guidelines.”
— Faith Scrivo, Constitutional Litigation Fellow, NCLA
For more information visit the amicus page here.
ABOUT NCLA
NCLA is a nonpartisan, nonprofit civil rights group founded by prominent legal scholar Philip Hamburger to protect constitutional freedoms from violations by the Administrative State. NCLA’s public-interest litigation and other pro bono advocacy strive to tame the unlawful power of state and federal agencies and to foster a new civil liberties movement that will help restore Americans’ fundamental rights.
Joe Martyak New Civil Liberties Alliance 703-403-1111 joe.martyak@ncla.legal
Media gallery
