scotus raises concerns over federal sentencing guidelines

Two justices on distinctly opposite sides of the Supreme Court ideological spectrum called out the United States Sentencing Commission recently in a denial of certiorari. The issue arose in Guerrant v. United States, a case in which the defendant appealed the application of the “career offender” enhancement under the federal sentencing guidelines. It’s a nuanced issue but it’s important for understanding the tone of the court.

There’s currently a split among the circuits surrounding the application of the “career offender” enhancement in federal criminal cases. A defendant who has two prior felony convictions for a controlled substance offense qualifies as a career offender and receives a substantially harsher federal sentence. But the problem is that the sentencing commission has not properly defined what constitutes a “controlled substance offense”. The commission defined a controlled substance offense as one under “federal or state law” but the guidelines do not determine what constitutes a controlled substance. Is it one defined by the Controlled Substance Act? Or one defined by the state law in the state the crime was committed? The guidelines remain silent on this.

In absence of a specific definition, courts of appeals have tried to wrangle with this issue and, of course, have split on its application. For instance, the Fourth, Seventh, Eighth, and Tenth Circuits define this under state law whereas the Ninth and Second circuits defer to federal law.