Hoping admin law gurus will help us all understand what Loper Bright might mean for federal sentencing law
More than 30 years ago, I had the great fortune to take administrative law in law school from then-Judge Stephen Breyer. Though I am sure I learned a lot in that admin law course, what I most remember learning is that I did not want to practice admin law. And yet, ironically I suppose, a good portion of my professional career has been devoted to considering (and sometimes criticizing) the work of the only federal administrative agency localed in the judicial branch, the US Sentencing Commission. Moreover, especially since the First Step Act created all sorts of new provisions to be applied to federal prisoners, I have been giving ever more attention to the work of the administrative agency known as the Federal Bureau of Prisons (which is within the bigger administrative agency known as the US Department of Justice). I am not sure it is surprising as much as it is intriguing that a whole lot of federal sentencing and correections law emerge from the actions of federal administrative agencies.
This post’s preamble is meant to tee up the isssue flagged in the title, as the Supreme Court last week issued a significant administrative law ruling in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, No. 22-451, (S. Ct. June 28, 2024) (available here), wherein the Court formally eliminated so-called Chevron deference in the consideration of challenges to actions by adminstrative agencies. Here is the key closing statement of the ruling in the case from Chief Judge Roberts’ opinion for the Court:
Chevron is overruled. Courts must exercise their independent judgment in deciding whether an agency has acted within its statutory authority, as the APA requires. Careful attention to the judgment of the Executive Branch may help inform that inquiry. And when a particular statute delegates authority to an agency consistent with constitutional limits, courts must respect the delegation, while ensuring that the agency acts within it. But courts need not and under the APA may not defer to an agency interpretation of the law simply because a statute is ambiguous.
So how does this significant ruling impact actions by the US Sentencing Commission and the Bureau of Prisons? Candidly, I do not know. I have already received a number of emails from a number of folks wondering if Loper Bright might be a federal sentencing game-changer in some respect, and I am always inclined to think probably not. But as flagged in a post here a couple years ago, the Supreme Court’s ruling in Kisor v. Wilkie, 139 S. Ct. 2400 (2019), recast for federal courts “the deference they give to agencies … in construing agency regulations” and that ruling has rippled in uneven and unpredictable ways through circuit decisions about how Guideline commentary can inform application of certain USSC Guidelines. And, writing here in Forbes, Walter Pavlo notes on-going litigation over BOP’s implementation of the First Step Act and concludes with this forecast: “The Chevron ruling will certainly prompt more lawsuits against the BOP in the coming months as prisoners will simply be asking for what Congress intended them to have … less time in prison.”
Adding to the intrigue, I suppose, is the fact that the Department of Justice (an agency) is currently arguing in courts nationwide that the US Sentencing Commission (an agency) misinterpreted the Sentencing Reform Act and the First Step Act when it recently amended USSG §1B1.13, Reduction in Term of Imprisonment Under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A) (Policy Statement), to provide in subsection (b)(6) that, when “a defendant received an unusually long sentence and has served at least 10 years of the term of imprisonment, a change in the law … may be considered in determining whether the defendant presents an extraordinary and compelling reason” to potentially permit a reduction in his imprisonment term. Notably, the SRA expressly delegates to the USSC the responsibility to “describe what should be considered extraordinary and compelling reasons for sentence reduction,” 28 USC § 994(t), and so I would think Loper Bright still supports courts showing “respect [to] the delegation.” But I have a feeling DOJ will not read Loper Bright to end its legal attack on the amended guideline.
There is on-going litigation before a number of circuits concerning this amended USSC’s policy statement, and it will be interesting to see if circuit judges rely heavily or at all on Loper Bright as they sort through the claim by DOJ that the USSC actions were not kosher. And if DOJ prevails and/or Loper Bright supports efforts to assail the US Sentencing Guidelines on statutory grounds, I wonder whether defendants and defense attorneys might be able to champion other statutory language in 28 USC § 994 to assail other Guidelines. For example, I have long thought many Guidelines — and particularly key provisions of the fraud and drug guidelines — fail to comply with 994(j), wherein Congress provided that the “Commission shall insure that the guidelines reflect the general appropriateness of imposing a sentence other than imprisonment in cases in which the defendant is a first offender who has not been convicted of a crime of violence or an otherwise serious offense.” Could and should whole guidelines or particular subprovisions be attacked by defendants whenever in non-violent, low level cases these provisions do not recommend “imposing a sentence other than imprisonment”?
My sense is that it will take quite a while before we fully understand the impacts of the Loper Bright ruling in awide array of legal arenas. I am just starting early with my general call that the folks smart enough to really understand administrative law make sure not to forget to helping all of us working through the possible federal criminal law echoes.