Whether the limits on agency deference announced in Kisor and Loper Bright constrain the deference courts may accord the Sentencing Commission's interpretation of its own rules via commentary

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 inte rpretive or explanatory commentary in the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual. Id. at 38. In Kisor v. Wilkie , 588 U.S. 558 (2019), this Court clarified that courts may extend Auer or Seminole Rock deference only where the regulation remains “genuinely ambiguous” after the court has “e xhaust[ed] all the traditional tools of construction.” Id. at 559 (quotation marks and citation omitted). And in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo , 603 U.S. 369 (2024), the Court reaffirmed that “courts must exercise indepe ndent judgment in determining the meaning” of the law. Id. at 394. The twelve circuits hearing criminal appeals are deeply divided over the recurring issue of whether Kisor and Loper Bright apply to the Guidelines. The question presented is: wh ether the limits on agency deference announced in Kisor and Loper Bright constrain the deference courts may accord the Sentencing Commission’s interpretation of it s own rules via commentary.