The Sentencing Guidelines have always presented novel constitutional and interpretive issues. One issue that has recently divided the lower courts is how much deference to afford to the Sentencing Commission’s commentary interpreting the Guidelines.
The Supreme Court answered this question nearly 30 years ago in Stinson v. United States, reasoning that the commentary is “akin to an agency’s interpretation of its own legislative rules,” which “must be given ‘controlling weight unless it is plainly erroneous or inconsistent with’” the Guidelines. Following Stinson, federal courts have regularly given controlling weight to Guidelines commentary.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law are third party online distributors of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law customers are able to access and use ALM's content, including content from the National Law Journal, The American Lawyer, Legaltech News, The New York Law Journal, and Corporate Counsel, as well as other sources of legal information.
For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at [email protected]
