← All Cases Coverage by Bryan K. Randolph · BrynoDC

Beaird v. United States

No. 25-5343 SCOTUS · Active SCOTUS Criminal Law & Procedure
Cert Granted: Apr 20, 2026 Argued: Oct 13, 2026


The Law · How the Case Works

Overview

Overview

The Supreme Court will decide whether Stinson v. United States (1993) still correctly states the rule for the deference courts owe to the commentary accompanying the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines. The case follows a circuit split that widened after Kisor v. Wilkie narrowed deference to agency interpretations.

The Application

History

Kendrick Jarrell Beaird pleaded guilty in the Northern District of Texas to possessing a firearm as a convicted felon under 18 U.S.C. 922(g)(1). The district court applied a Guidelines enhancement under U.S.S.G. 2K2.1(a)(3) for a semiautomatic firearm capable of accepting a large capacity magazine, which produced a range of 63 to 78 months. The text of the guideline does not define large capacity magazine, but Commentary Note 2 defines the term to cover a magazine that could accept more than 15 rounds, and Beaird's firearm had a 17-round magazine. Beaird argued that under Kisor the court should not defer to that commentary and should instead read the guideline through its structure and history, under which a 17-round magazine is standard in the consumer market rather than large. The Fifth Circuit rejected that argument, held that Kisor did not disturb Stinson's authority, and affirmed. The decision under review is reported at 2025 WL 1410410 (5th Cir. No. 24-10764).

The Conclusion

Beaird is set for argument on October 13, 2026. A ruling that narrows or overrules Stinson would give district judges more room to read the Guidelines text on their own, without automatic deference to the Sentencing Commission's commentary, and could open the door to resentencing challenges where commentary expanded a term the guideline itself does not define. A ruling that reaffirms Stinson would keep the commentary authoritative when courts calculate sentencing ranges. Beaird's cert petition, filed pro se, raised three questions, including a Second Amendment challenge to Section 922(g)(1); the Court agreed to hear only the question about deference to the Guidelines commentary.

CourtSupreme Court of the United States
FiledAug 13, 2025
CL StatusActive
View on CourtListener →

No circuit court data for this case.

Cert GrantedApr 20, 2026
StatusActive
Filed (CL)Aug 13, 2025
View on CourtListener →
- TMR-b1a26271 Aug 16, 2026
Subscribe on Substack ↗

This tracker is maintained by BrynoDC and is free because readers fund it. Support