Columbus, OH – On Tuesday, The Buckeye Institute filed its amicus brief in Beaird v. United States, calling on the U.S. Supreme Court to overturn Stinson v. United States and restore the limits Congress placed on the U.S. Sentencing Commission.

“The real-world impact of Stinson v. United States was to allow the U.S. Sentencing Commission to expand its authority beyond the limited powers Congress granted,” said David C. Tryon, director of litigation at The Buckeye Institute. “If the commission wishes its commentary to have binding legal effect, it need only incorporate those provisions into the sentencing guidelines and submit them to Congress.”

In its brief, The Buckeye Institute argues that the court should overturn Stinson v. United States and eliminate Stinson deference, which has elevated the commentary portion of the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines to the equivalent of binding law, something Congress did not authorize when it created the U.S. Sentencing Commission in 1984. The Buckeye Institute argues that the U.S. Constitution grants Congress the exclusive power to enact criminal laws and to establish punishments for those crimes, and that the courts cannot give the commentary in the sentencing guidelines the force of law. Simply put, Stinson deference violates the Constitution’s exclusive grant of authority to Congress. In overturning Stinson, the court would continue its efforts to rein in the administrative state, having already overturned Chevron deference and recognizing that courts—not executive agencies—bear the responsibility for interpreting legal texts. 

# # #