In the News

As part of its notice regarding proposed priorities and amendments, the U.S. Sentencing Commission has announced what may become its broadest examination of the federal sentencing system in years. Rather than identifying only a handful of discrete Guidelines provisions for amendment, the Commission’s first priority for the 2026–27 amendment cycle is an evaluation of the Guidelines and federal sentencing practices as a whole, timed to coincide with two milestones: forty years since the original Guidelines Manual and roughly twenty years of experience with the advisory Guidelines regime created by United States v. Booker. The Commission seeks to determine whether the now-advisory Guidelines ranges continue to reflect the statutory purposes of sentencing, how advisory Guidelines influence actual sentencing practices, which provisions meaningfully distinguish culpability, and whether forty years of empirical experience support existing sentencing rules.

The Department of Justice has announced that it will no longer seek criminal penalties against federally licensed firearm dealers for selling handguns to otherwise law-abiding adults between the ages of 18 and 20. DOJ cited an opinion by its Office of Legal Counsel concluding that the prohibitions under 922(b)(1) and (c)(1) are unconstitutional under Bruen. (Link to opinion in post).

Since the Supreme Court’s Fourth Amendment ruling in Chatrie v. United States, at least two federal courts have applied its reasoning to two different kinds of cell phone technology used by law enforcement. A district court in Mississippi held that a warrant for a “tower dump,” which collects information from every phone connecting to particular cell towers, was an unconstitutional “general warrant.” More recently, the Fourth Circuit held that the use of cell-site simulators, which obtain a cell phone’s location by impersonating a cell tower, constitutes a Fourth Amendment search.

The U.S. Sentencing Commission’s amendments to the Federal Sentencing Guidelines are set to take effect on November 1, 2026.

The 2026 edition of the Guidelines includes seven principal changes: they eliminate 26 rarely-applied specific offense characteristics, raise monetary thresholds under the “loss table” to account for inflation, add fentanyl-related substances to the drug guidelines, replace the multiple-count framework, place sentencing options before the Sentencing Table, add references for two new federal offenses, and make technical corrections throughout the Guidelines Manual.

The 2025 government shutdown didn’t stop federal criminal prosecutions or investigations, but it did expose how fragile the system is when Congress cuts off money. DOJ and the courts kept prosecutions, grand juries, and trials moving by forcing “essential” staff to work without pay, while the Criminal Justice Act program collapsed, leaving panel lawyers unpaid, at least one federal death-penalty case halted, and clear Sixth Amendment violations on the record. The net effect was simple: the government’s ability to prosecute was preserved, but the fairness and quality of defense—especially for indigent defendants—took the hit.

A federal judge in the Eastern District of Virginia dismissed headline-grabbing criminal cases against former FBI Director James Comey and NY Attorney General Letitia James based on the improper appointment of the interim U.S. attorney who obtained the indictments, holding she had no legal authority to prosecute. The ruling underscores that violations of 28 U.S.C. § 546 and the Vacancies Act can render entire prosecutions void and signals that courts are prepared to scrutinize interim and acting U.S. attorney appointments, which have become more prevalent in the current Trump administration.

The 2025 Federal Sentencing Guidelines took effect on November 1, 2025. Changes to the Guidelines since last year include eliminating “departures” from the Guidelines, increasing judicial discretion in imposing terms of supervised release (and often in favor of leniency), and resolving circuit splits regarding enhancements for offenses involving “physical restraint,” “intervening arrests,” minor role reductions, firearms, and criminal history calculations.

A federal judge in Washington, D.C. is weighing criminal contempt proceedings against DHS officials over deportation flights that allegedly defied a court order to planes carrying Venezuelan migrants to turn around and return the detainees to the U.S. The case tests how far federal courts can go in personally punishing executive-branch officials ostensibly acting in the spheres of national security and international immigration.

The Supreme Court has granted review in a cluster of cases that go directly to core federal criminal issues: Hemani (Second Amendment limits on § 922(g)(3) “drug user” cases), Barrett (how far prosecutors can stack § 924(c) and § 924(j) firearm penalties), Ellingburg (whether MVRA restitution is “punishment” for Ex Post Facto purposes), and Villarreal (Sixth Amendment limits on barring attorney-client consultation during trial recesses). The Court also agreed to hear Noem v. Al Otro Lado, which addresses asylum “metering” at the border and could influence how “entry” and presence are defined in illegal entry, reentry, and smuggling prosecutions.

Congress passed a new “Farm Bill” on November 12, 2025 that rewrites the federal definition of “hemp” and will re-classify most hemp products as Schedule I substances when it goes into effect in a year. The new bill changes the definition of “hemp” under federal law by 1) broadening the legal THC limit to 0.3% or less of “total THC,” 2) banning most lab-made hemp cannabinoids like delta-8 and THCP, and 3) imposing a 0.4 mg-per-container cap on intoxicating cannabinoids.