Wiggins v. United States

Background

Antoine Wiggins asked the Court to review whether a prior drug conviction counts as a “controlled substance offense” under the federal Sentencing Guidelines. The Guides’ definition matters because it can make someone a “career offender,” which raises sentencing ranges. The statement explains that federal appeals courts disagree about whether the phrase refers to state law, federal law, or either. The Sentencing Commission regained a quorum in 2022 and has acknowledged the split but has not fixed it or planned to do so in the 2025–2026 cycle.

Reasoning

The central question is whether “controlled substance offense” means a drug crime under state law, federal law, or both for purposes of sentencing. The Court denied review of the case, so it did not settle that question. Justice Sotomayor’s statement says the split has deepened and that the answer can determine who becomes a career offender and who faces much higher prison ranges. She emphasizes that the Sentencing Commission is responsible for resolving the conflict and should act or explain why it will not.

Real world impact

Because the Court declined to take the case, the disagreement among the appeals courts remains. As a result, two people with the same criminal histories and the same federal conviction can face very different sentences depending on where they live. The ruling is not a final decision on the legal question and could change if the Commission amends the Guidelines or if the Court later agrees to hear a case.