Wiggins v. United States, 24-6410

Antoine Wiggins petitioned the Supreme Court following a Third Circuit decision involving the definition of a "controlled substance offense" under federal sentencing guidelines (USSG §4B1.2(b)).
There is a split among federal appellate courts regarding whether a "controlled substance offense" must relate to drugs prohibited under state law, federal law, or either.
The U.S. Sentencing Commission had previously been unable to address this issue due to lacking a quorum but regained the ability to amend guidelines in 2022.
Despite acknowledging the circuit split, the Sentencing Commission has not yet resolved the issue and has not included it in its priorities for the 2025–2026 amendment cycle.
This ambiguity affects whether certain defendants are classified as "career offenders" under the Guidelines, potentially leading to significant sentencing disparities based solely on geographic location.
The Supreme Court denied certiorari, but Justices Sotomayor and Barrett issued a statement highlighting the need for uniformity and urging Commission action or, absent that, potential Supreme Court intervention.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Definition of "controlled substance offense"	Should use state law or both; differential treatment unfair	Should use federal law; promotes uniformity	Cert denied; issue not resolved; split persists
Sentencing disparities	Location-based sentencing disparities are arbitrary and unfair	Existing guidelines are sufficient	Cert denied; disparities remain
Role of Sentencing Commission	Commission should resolve the split	Commission compliance not addressed	Commission urged to act
Supreme Court intervention if Commission inaction	Court should step in if Commission fails	Oppose Supreme Court involvement preemptively	No action; issue left open

Braxton v. United States, 500 U.S. 344 (1991) (Recognized Sentencing Commission's responsibility to ensure consistent guideline application)