No. 24-6334

John Fredenburgh v. United States

Lower Court: Seventh Circuit
Docketed: 2025-01-17
Status: Denied
Type: IFP
Response WaivedIFP
Tags: administrative-law judicial-deference judicial-independence sentencing-guidelines statutory-interpretation supreme-court-precedent
Key Terms:
AdministrativeLaw
Latest Conference: 2025-02-21
Question Presented (AI Summary)

Does judicial deference to the Sentencing Commission's Commentary to the United States Sentencing Guidelines violate the principles of judicial independence as explained in Kisor v. Wilke and Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo?

Question Presented (from Petition)

Does judicial deference to the Sentencing Commission’s Commentary to the United States Sentencing Guidelines violate the princip les of judicial independence as explained in Kisor v. Wilke and Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo ?

Docket Entries

2025-02-24
Petition DENIED.
2025-01-30
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 2/21/2025.
2025-01-28
Waiver of United States of right to respond submitted.
Main Document
2025-01-28
Waiver of right of respondent United States to respond filed.
Main DocumentMain Document
2025-01-10
Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due February 18, 2025)
Motion for Leave to Proceed in Forma PauperisPetitionAppendixProof of ServiceMotion for Leave to Proceed in Forma PauperisPetitionAppendix

Attorneys

John Fredenburgh
Colleen McNichols Ramais — Office of the Federal Public Defender, Petitioner
Colleen McNichols Ramais — Office of the Federal Public Defender, Petitioner
United States
Elizabeth B. Prelogar — Solicitor General, Respondent
Sarah M. Harris — Acting Solicitor General, Respondent
Sarah M. Harris — Acting Solicitor General, Respondent