⚖ Oral Arguments, with Context

The Supreme Court hears Beaird versus United States, about the power of official notes attached to the federal sentencing guidelines. Beaird pleaded guilty in Texas to possessing a firearm after a felony conviction. His case involved a seventeen-round magazine and a prior aggravated-assault conviction. The guideline increases the offense level for certain gun offenses involving a large capacity magazine. The explanatory note draws the relevant line at more than fifteen rounds. Beaird objected, arguing that his standard magazine was not large under the ordinary meaning of the guideline. The district court followed the commentary and rejected his objection, then imposed a six-year sentence. The Fifth Circuit affirmed under binding circuit precedent. The Court took the case to reconsider Stinson, a nineteen-ninety-three decision that generally makes interpretive commentary authoritative. Beaird will ask judges to interpret the guidelines without deference, or alternatively follow Kisor, which requires genuine ambiguity before deferring to an agency's reading of its own rules. The government also wants the appeal judgment set aside, but will defend a limited form of deference. The Court appointed another lawyer to argue for preserving Stinson. Although these guidelines now recommend rather than mandate a prison term, courts must still calculate the recommended range correctly. Stare decisis, which you'll hear, is the principle of respecting prior court decisions. Kevin Joel Page, an assistant federal public defender, will begin for Beaird.

Beaird v. United States (No. 25-5343) — Supreme Court of the United States, argued October 13, 2026.