This educational guide is based on the linked primary sources. It is not a Court publication, is not affiliated with the Court, and is not legal advice.
In brief
Overview
The petitioner argues that Sentencing Commission policy statements cannot override the Court’s directive that sentencing guidelines are advisory.
The petitioner contends that imposing a mandatory guideline sentence that exceeds the jury’s verdict violates the Sixth Amendment.
According to Ms. Kruger, many guideline ranges have been reduced retroactively; the Sentencing Commission has made 27 retroactive amendments.
According to Ms. Kruger, the district court may consider any disciplinary proceedings that occurred during the defendant’s imprisonment when deciding a sentence reduction.
According to Ms. Kruger, section 3582(c)(2) directs that district courts have discretion to reduce sentences consistent with applicable policy statements, after considering the statutory factors in § 3553(a).
The government takes these considerations into account when making recommendations about sentence reductions under § 3582(c)(2).
According to Lisa B. Freeland, under rule 1B1.10, courts are required (“shall”) to consider bad behavior in prison when deciding a sentence reduction.
- [1] 76da9b4630923138ba2b-r1-c2bb2e1bd033ec40.pdf, p. 3
- [2] 76da9b4630923138ba2b-r1-c2bb2e1bd033ec40.pdf, p. 3
- [3] 76da9b4630923138ba2b-r1-c2bb2e1bd033ec40.pdf, p. 33
- [4] 76da9b4630923138ba2b-r1-c2bb2e1bd033ec40.pdf, p. 38
- [5] 76da9b4630923138ba2b-r1-c2bb2e1bd033ec40.pdf, p. 39
- [6] 76da9b4630923138ba2b-r1-c2bb2e1bd033ec40.pdf, p. 41
- [7] 76da9b4630923138ba2b-r1-c2bb2e1bd033ec40.pdf, p. 45
Background and question before the Court
According to Chief Justice Roberts, the Court asked whether a new Sentencing Commission guideline that reduces sentences would raise constitutional problems.
According to Justice Sotomayor, justices inquired about the Sixth Amendment implications of applying Sentencing Commission policy statements to resentencing.
According to Justice Scalia, justice Scalia stated that the nature of the Sentencing Commission’s policy statement, not the section itself, is unconstitutional.
Justice Breyer asked, “What’s unconstitutional about that?” regarding the policy statement.
What each side argues
Petitioner (Percy Dillon)
The petitioner contends that the Sentencing Commission’s policy cannot override the Court’s advisory‑guidelines directive.
The petitioner argues that mandatory guideline sentences exceeding the jury verdict violate the Sixth Amendment.
According to Ms. Kruger, the district court may consider any disciplinary proceedings that occurred during the defendant’s imprisonment when deciding a reduction.
According to Ms. Kruger, the petitioner notes that many guideline ranges have been reduced retroactively, with 27 retroactive amendments to date.
According to Lisa B. Freeland, the petitioner argues that courts must consider a defendant’s behavior in prison when applying § 3582(c)(2) reductions, as required by rule 1B1.10.
What happened at oral argument
Chief Justice Roberts asked whether a new guideline that reduces sentences by 10 percent would present any constitutional problems.
According to Justice Sotomayor, justice Sotomayor questioned the constitutional difference that would give a Sixth Amendment right in resentencing versus a Bureau of Prisons modification.
According to Justice Scalia, justice Scalia stated that the nature of the Sentencing Commission’s policy statement, not the section itself, is unconstitutional.
Justice Breyer asked, “What’s unconstitutional about that?” regarding the policy statement.
According to Justice Ginsburg, justice Ginsburg inquired whether other guideline ranges have been reduced retroactively.
Justice Kennedy asked whether the judge must consider a prisoner’s behavior in prison when deciding a reduction under § 3582(c).
According to Chief Justice Roberts, chief Justice Roberts expressed concern that allowing judges to consider conduct in prison could open the door to many other factors.
Justice Kennedy asked whether the Justice Department ever recommends commutations for prisoners like the respondent.
According to Justice Kennedy, justice Kennedy noted that there were no commutations the prior year and five the year before.
Justice Stevens asked whether the statute would prohibit a more generous policy statement.
Justice Scalia asked for clarification on how the court can consider other factors under § 3553 when making a reduction.
- [1] 76da9b4630923138ba2b-r1-c2bb2e1bd033ec40.pdf, p. 4
- [2] 76da9b4630923138ba2b-r1-c2bb2e1bd033ec40.pdf, p. 7
- [3] 76da9b4630923138ba2b-r1-c2bb2e1bd033ec40.pdf, p. 21
- [4] 76da9b4630923138ba2b-r1-c2bb2e1bd033ec40.pdf, p. 22
- [5] 76da9b4630923138ba2b-r1-c2bb2e1bd033ec40.pdf, p. 33
- [6] 76da9b4630923138ba2b-r1-c2bb2e1bd033ec40.pdf, p. 38
- [7] 76da9b4630923138ba2b-r1-c2bb2e1bd033ec40.pdf, p. 39
- [8] 76da9b4630923138ba2b-r1-c2bb2e1bd033ec40.pdf, p. 40
- [9] 76da9b4630923138ba2b-r1-c2bb2e1bd033ec40.pdf, p. 41
- [10] 76da9b4630923138ba2b-r1-c2bb2e1bd033ec40.pdf, p. 42
- [11] 76da9b4630923138ba2b-r1-c2bb2e1bd033ec40.pdf, p. 43
What the Court decided
Why it matters
Terms to know
No glossary terms are available for this guide.
Primary sources
Read the source materials on the official site or open the immutable repository copy used for this guide.
- 76da9b4630923138ba2b-r1-c2bb2e1bd033ec40.pdforal argument transcript
Guide generated September 23, 2026. Automated validation accepted this version.