Whether the limits on agency deference announced in Kisor constrain the deference that courts may accord to the commentary to the Sentencing Guidelines

QUESTION PRESENTED In Stinson v. United States, 508 U.S. 36 (1993), this Court held that Seminole Rock deference, now generally known as Auer deference, applies to interpretive or explanatory commentary in the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual. Jd. at 38. In Kisor v. Wilkie, 139 S. Ct. 2400 (2019), this Court clarified the limits on this deference, and made clear that courts may extend Auer or Seminole Rock deference only where the law remains “genuinely ambiguous” after the court has “exhausted all the traditional tools of construction.” Id. at 2415 (quotation marks omitted). The circuits are deeply divided over whether Kisor’s holding applies in the Guidelines context. The questions presented are: 1. Whether the limits on agency deference announced in Kisor constrain the deference that courts may accord to the commentary to the Sentencing Guidelines. 2. Whether deference to the Guidelines commentary is impermissible in any form. (i)