Whether Kisor constrains the deference courts may accord to the commentary to the Sentencing Guidelines

QUESTION PRESENTED In Stinson v. United States, 508 U.S. 36 (1998), this Court held that Seminole Rock deference, now Auer deference, applies to interpretive or explanatory commentary in the United States Sentencing Guidelines Manual. Jd. at 38. In Kisor v. Wilkie, 139 S. Ct. 2400 (2019), this Court held that courts may apply Auer or Seminole Rock deference only where the text of the law remains “genuinely ambiguous” after the court has “exhausted all the traditional tools of construction.” Jd. at 2415 (quotation marks omitted). The circuits are deeply divided over whether Kisor alters the rule in Stinson and how Kisor applies to the Guidelines and its commentary. The questions presented are: 1. Whether Kisor constrains the deference courts may accord to the commentary to the Sentencing Guidelines. 2. Whether the text of the stolen gun enhancement under § 2K2.1(b)(4)(A) is ambiguous when read in concert with § 1B1.3, which defines relevant conduct.