The United States Sentencing Commission (USSC) serves a critical function: establishing and maintaining the Federal Sentencing Guidelines. These guidelines dictate the range of sentences federal courts may impose. Each year, the Commission sets an agenda to review and revise these rules, and the priorities for the upcoming 2025-2026 amendment cycle signal major areas of focus for federal sentencing policy.
Key Policy Priorities for the 2025-2026 Term
The USSC has unanimously adopted a focused list of policy priorities for the cycle ending May 1, 2026. These areas suggest the Commission is looking to refine, clarify, and modernize guidelines across several high-impact areas of the law:
(1) Examination of how the guidelines can provide courts with additional guidance on selecting the appropriate sentencing option (e.g., imprisonment, probation, or fine), and possible consideration of amendments that might be appropriate.
(2) Further examination of the penalty structure for certain drug trafficking offenses under §2D1.1 (Unlawful Manufacturing, Importing, Exporting, or Trafficking (Including Possession with Intent to Commit These Offenses)), including (A) consideration of possible amendments addressing the purity distinctions for methamphetamine provided in the Drug Quantity Table and related application notes; and (B) consideration of other miscellaneous issues pertaining to drug trafficking offenses coming to the Commission’s attention, such as possible statutory changes relating to fentanyl.
(3) Examination of §2B1.1 (Theft, Property Destruction, and Fraud) and related guidelines to ensure the guidelines appropriately reflect the culpability of the individual and the harm to the victim, including (A) reassessing the role of actual loss, intended loss, and gain; (B) considering whether the loss table in §2B1.1 should be revised to simplify application or to adjust for inflation; (C) considering the application and impact of the victims table in §2B1.1 and adjustments in Chapter Three, Part A (Victim-Related Adjustments), relating to victims; (D) considering the application and impact of adjustments in Chapter Three, Part B (Role in the Offense) relating to role in the offense; and (E) possible consideration of amendments that might be appropriate.
(4) Continued examination of the career offender guidelines, including (A) evaluating the impact, feasibility, and uniformity in application of alternative approaches to the “categorical approach” through workshops, field testing, and updating the data analyses set forth in the Commission’s 2016 report to Congress, titled Career Offender Sentencing Enhancements; and (B) possible consideration of amendments that might be appropriate.
(5) Examination of whether the guidelines provide appropriate adjustments for good behavior, including examination of whether §3E1.1 (Acceptance of Responsibility) and §5K1.1 (Substantial Assistance to Authorities) fully account for the variety of ways in which an individual may manifest acceptance of responsibility and provide substantial assistance, and possible consideration of amendments that might be appropriate.
(6) Continued exploration of ways to simplify the Guidelines Manual, including (A) examining the operation of the grouping rules in Chapter Three, Part D (Multiple Counts); (B) examining the operation of specific provisions of Chapter Four, Part A (Criminal History); (C) examining the operation of §5G1.3 (Imposition of a Sentence on a Defendant Subject to an Undischarged Term of Imprisonment or Anticipated State Term of Imprisonment); (D) evaluating infrequently applied specific offense characteristics and adjustments provisions throughout the Guidelines Manual; and (E) possible consideration of amendments that might be appropriate.
(7) Assessing the degree to which certain practices of the Bureau of Prisons are effective in meeting the purposes of sentencing as set forth in 18 U.S.C. 3553(a)(2) and considering any appropriate responses including possible consideration of recommendations or amendments.
(8) Implementation of any legislation warranting Commission action.
(9) Resolution of circuit conflicts as warranted, pursuant to the Commission’s authority under 28 U.S.C. 991(b)(1)(B) and Braxton v. United States, 500 U.S. 344 (1991).
(10) Consideration of other miscellaneous issues coming to the Commission’s attention.Explaining the Annual Amendment Cycle
The USSC operates on a rigorous, congressionally mandated annual amendment cycle, ensuring the Guidelines Manual is continually updated in response to new legislation, legal decisions, and empirical data.
| Phase | Timeline | Action & Significance |
|---|---|---|
| 1. Setting Priorities | June – August (Year 1) | The Commission publishes Proposed Priorities and solicits public comment. After review, it votes to adopt Final Priorities for the upcoming year’s work. |
| 2. Drafting and Proposal | September – December (Year 1) | The Commission conducts research, holds public hearings, and drafts specific language for Proposed Amendments to the Guidelines Manual. |
| 3. Public Comment & Final Vote | January – March (Year 2) | Proposed Amendments are published in the Federal Register for a second round of public comment. The Commission reviews this feedback and votes on the final, adopted amendments. |
| 4. Submission to Congress | By May 1st (Year 2) | The final amendments are formally submitted to Congress. This begins a mandatory 180-day review period. |
| 5. Effective Date | November 1st (Year 2) | Barring an act of Congress to disapprove the changes, the new amendments to the Federal Sentencing Guidelines automatically become effective on November 1st, fundamentally changing how federal sentences are calculated from that date forward. |
This structured process guarantees that the Sentencing Guidelines remain a dynamic document, reflecting current policy goals and legal consensus. The upcoming 2025-2026 cycle promises to be particularly impactful, especially for those convicted of drug and economic crimes.
