Whether the limits on agency deference articulated in Kisor limit the deference owed to the United States Sentencing Commission's commentary on intended loss under 2B1.1 Application Note 3 of 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, required the United States Sentencing Commission’s commentary on the Sentencing Guidelines to be treated like “an agency’s interpretation of its own legislative rules,” and afforded “controlling weight unless it is plainly erroneous or inconsistent with” the Guidelines themselves. Jd. (quoting Bowles v. Seminole Rock & Sand Co., 325 U.S. 410, 414 (1945)). In Kisor v. Wilkie, 139 S. Ct. 2400 (2019), this Court circumscribed the deference courts must give to agencies’ interpretations of their own legislative rules, 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 Question Presented is: Whether the limits on agency deference articulated in Azsor limit the deference owed to the United States Sentencing Commission’s commentary on intended loss under 2B1.1 Application Note 3 of the Sentencing Guidelines.