Beaird v. United States
No. 25-5343 · October Term 2026 · Criminal Procedure · argument October 13, 2026
Expected vote 5–4 for Beaird. Chance of a unanimous ruling 41%.
Before oral argument the model knows only the case's structure: the issue area, which way the lower court ruled, and each justice's record on both. That is not enough to separate cases, so every unargued case carries the petitioner's base rate. The transcript features arrive within days of argument and the number becomes a call.
The case
Kendrick Jarrell Beaird, a convicted felon, is challenging his sentence for possessing a firearm with a large capacity magazine. The Fifth Circuit affirmed his sentence, which was enhanced based on a definition found in the Federal Sentencing Guidelines Commentary rather than the Guidelines themselves. The Supreme Court will decide whether courts must defer to the Sentencing Guidelines Commentary, specifically when it expands the scope of sentencing enhancements.
- Whether Stinson v. United States (1993) still correctly states the rule for the deference that courts must give the commentary to the Sentencing Guidelines.
- Whether the Sentencing Guidelines Commentary can define terms not present in the Guidelines themselves, especially if it leads to an increased penalty.
- What level of deference is due to administrative agency interpretations of their own regulations, a question that implicates the broader doctrine of Auer deference.
AI brief written by gemini-2.5-flash from the questions presented and the Oyez facts on 2026-10-02. Commentary only; it is not an input to the model.
Question presented, as filed
I. Whether 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) comports with the Second Amendment? II. Whether Stinson v. United States still accurately state the level of deference due to the Commentary of the Federal Sentencing Guidelines? III. Whether 18 U.S.C. § 922(g) permits conviction for the possession of any firearm that has ever crossed state lines at any time in the indefinite past, and, if so, if it is facially unconstitutional?
Facts of the case (Oyez)
Kendrick Jarrell Beaird pleaded guilty to possessing a firearm as a convicted felon. During sentencing, the district court applied a penalty enhancement under the Federal Sentencing Guidelines because Beaird possessed a “large capacity magazine.” While the text of the Guidelines does not define that term, the accompanying official Commentary specifies that any magazine capable of holding more than 15 rounds triggers the increased penalty. Beaird possessed a magazine that held 17 rounds. He argued that the district court erred by relying on the Commentary to define a term missing from the actual Guidelines. This challenge focuses on the level of deference courts must grant to supplemental Commentary, especially when that Commentary expands the scope of sentencing enhancements beyond the written text of the Guidelines. The district court sentenced Beaird to 72 months in prison and three years of supervised release. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit affirmed the sentence, holding that prior circuit precedent foreclosed Beaird’s challenge to the court’s reliance on the Guidelines commentary.
The nine
Each justice's predicted vote and the record behind it: how often they have voted for the petitioner overall, in Criminal Procedure cases, and when the lower court ruled conservative; and, once argued, how many questions they put to each side (the side a justice questions more tends to lose their vote). The note under each row is the AI brief's reading, commentary rather than model input.
| Justice | Predicted | Overall | This issue | Lower court conservative | At argument |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
John G. Roberts Republican appointee · since OT2005 Chief Justice Roberts often emphasizes judicial restraint and adherence to established precedent, but he has also shown a willingness to re-examine administrative deference doctrines. | 57% Beaird | 68% for the petitioner · 1,512 votes | 65% Criminal Procedure · 401 votes | 61% lower court conservative · 734 votes | not yet argued |
Clarence Thomas Republican appointee · since OT1991 Justice Thomas is a strong critic of judicial deference to administrative agencies, which suggests he might be inclined to limit the deference given to the Sentencing Guidelines Commentary. | 51% Beaird | 59% for the petitioner · 2,801 votes | 55% Criminal Procedure · 724 votes | 43% lower court conservative · 1,365 votes | not yet argued |
Samuel A. Alito Republican appointee · since OT2005 Justice Alito generally favors strict textual interpretations and has expressed skepticism about broad deference to agency interpretations, which could lead him to question the Commentary's authority. | 51% Beaird | 62% for the petitioner · 1,469 votes | 51% Criminal Procedure · 388 votes | 48% lower court conservative · 722 votes | not yet argued |
Sonia Sotomayor Democratic appointee · since OT2009 Justice Sotomayor often considers the practical impact of sentencing rules on defendants and has generally supported the Sentencing Guidelines' structure, but might be sensitive to expansions of penalties through commentary. | 66% Beaird | 61% for the petitioner · 1,192 votes | 72% Criminal Procedure · 306 votes | 76% lower court conservative · 594 votes | not yet argued |
Elena Kagan Democratic appointee · since OT2010 Justice Kagan typically supports deference to agency expertise and has been a proponent of stare decisis, which could lead her to uphold Stinson, but she also values clear statutory interpretation. | 66% Beaird | 63% for the petitioner · 1,072 votes | 72% Criminal Procedure · 267 votes | 75% lower court conservative · 543 votes | not yet argued |
Neil M. Gorsuch Republican appointee · since OT2016 Justice Gorsuch is a vocal critic of judicial deference to administrative agencies, particularly Auer deference, making him a likely candidate to limit the authority of the Sentencing Guidelines Commentary. | 57% Beaird | 65% for the petitioner · 592 votes | 63% Criminal Procedure · 126 votes | 59% lower court conservative · 286 votes | not yet argued |
Brett M. Kavanaugh Republican appointee · since OT2018 Justice Kavanaugh generally respects precedent but has also shown an interest in clarifying the boundaries of administrative power, which could influence his view on the Commentary's role. | 63% Beaird | 69% for the petitioner · 498 votes | 66% Criminal Procedure · 105 votes | 62% lower court conservative · 244 votes | not yet argued |
Amy Coney Barrett Republican appointee · since OT2020 Justice Barrett often emphasizes textualism and originalism, which could lead her to scrutinize whether the Commentary oversteps the bounds of the Guidelines' text. | 57% Beaird | 66% for the petitioner · 360 votes | 60% Criminal Procedure · 80 votes | 60% lower court conservative · 178 votes | not yet argued |
Ketanji Brown Jackson Democratic appointee · since OT2022 Justice Jackson, having served as a federal public defender and a district court judge, has extensive experience with the Sentencing Guidelines and their practical application, which could inform her perspective on the Commentary's authority. | 68% Beaird | 59% for the petitioner · 244 votes | 67% Criminal Procedure · 54 votes | 80% lower court conservative · 127 votes | not yet argued |
Rates are each justice's own participation record in the Supreme Court Database, the same history the model trains on; a rate on fewer than five votes is not shown. The predicted vote is VotePredictor SCOTUS' per-justice probability from the served model, which also reads the bench-wide transcript signal and how long each side held the podium.
Every call this term, justice by justice · how the model is built and its record. Data as of 2026-10-02.