No. 25-227

Raymond Poore v. United States

Lower Court: Seventh Circuit
Docketed: 2025-08-27
Status: Pending
Type: Paid
Amici (1)Response RequestedResponse WaivedRelisted (6) Experienced Counsel
Tags: administrative-law agency-deference circuit-split judicial-interpretation sentencing-guidelines statutory-construction
Latest Conference: 2026-02-27 (distributed 6 times)
Question Presented (from Petition)

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 interpretive 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 "exhausted all the traditional tools of construction." Id. at 559 (quotation marks and citation omitted). And in Loper Light Enterprises v. Raimondo, 603 U.S. 369 (2024), the Court reaffirmed that "courts must exercise independent 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: 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.

Question Presented (AI Summary)

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

Docket Entries

2026-02-23
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 2/27/2026.
2026-02-13
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 2/20/2026.
2026-01-20
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 1/23/2026.
2026-01-12
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 1/16/2026.
2025-12-03
Reply of petitioner Raymond Poore filed. (Distributed)
2025-12-03
Reply of Raymond Poore submitted.
2025-12-03
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 1/9/2026.
2025-11-19
Brief of respondent United States in opposition filed.
2025-10-22
Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted and the time is extended to and including November 19, 2025.
2025-10-20
Motion to extend the time to file a response from October 20, 2025 to November 19, 2025, submitted to The Clerk.
2025-10-20
Motion of United States for an extension of time submitted.
2025-09-26
Brief amicus curiae of New Civil Liberties Alliance filed.
2025-09-26
Amicus brief of New Civil Liberties Alliance submitted.
2025-09-18
Response Requested. (Due October 20, 2025)
2025-09-10
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 9/29/2025.
2025-09-05
Waiver of right of respondent United States to respond filed.
2025-09-05
Waiver of United States of right to respond submitted.
2025-08-25
Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due September 26, 2025)
2025-07-09
Application (25A33) granted by Justice Barrett extending the time to file until August 25, 2025.
2025-06-25
Application (25A33) to extend the time to file a petition for a writ of certiorari from July 24, 2025 to August 25, 2025, submitted to Justice Barrett.

Attorneys

New Civil Liberties Alliance
Katherine Brady NormanNew Civil Liberties Alliance, Amicus
Raymond Poore
Neal Kumar KatyalMilbank LLP, Petitioner
United States
D. John SauerSolicitor General, Respondent