Whether the Sentencing Commission, when interpreting the Guidelines, should receive a more deferential version of Auer deference than all other federal agencies

QUESTION PRESENTED In Stinson v. United States, this Court held that the Sentencing Commission’s commentary on the Sentencing Guidelines “is akin to an agency’s interpretation of its own legislative rules,” and is thus entitled to Seminole Rock deference—now called Auer deference. 508 US. 36, 45 (1993). The Court more recently clarified in Kisor v. Wilkie that “a court should not afford Auer deference unless [a] regulation is genuinely ambiguous,” so Awer deference applies only after a court has “exhaust[ed] all the ‘traditional tools’ of construction.” 1398S. Ct. 2400, 2415 (2019). The question presented is: Whether the Sentencing Commission, when interpreting the Guidelines, should receive a more deferential version of Auer deference than all other federal agencies.