The recent decision by the U.S. Supreme Court to overturn the Chevron doctrine has far-reaching implications, one of the most notable being the potential end of the U.S. sentencing guidelines. Legal experts Mark Allenbaugh, Doug Passon, and Alan Ellis argue that the guidelines have not achieved the goals for which they were originally created, such as ensuring certainty, proportionality, and uniformity in sentencing. Instead, the guidelines have arguably led to unintended consequences.
In their article, Allenbaugh, Passon, and Ellis delve into the historical context and the implications of the Supreme Court’s decision. They note that while the Supreme Court addressed the deference owed to the U.S. Sentencing Commission’s commentary in Stinson v. U.S., it has never directly dealt with the deference owed to the guidelines themselves. This recent judicial development signals a potential shift in how sentencing will be approached in the future.