Sentencing Commission Proposes Major Changes to Federal Guidelines That Could Expand Probation, Reshape Career Offender Rules and Reduce Impact of Prior Marijuana Convictions

The United States Sentencing Commission is proposing some of the most consequential changes to the federal sentencing guidelines in years, including reforms that could significantly expand the use of probation and split sentences while dramatically redefining how prior drug and violent convictions trigger enhanced penalties under the career offender rule. The proposal, set for official publication February 6 in the Federal Register, opens a public comment period through March 18 and outlines multiple potential amendments the Commission is considering for the 2026 guideline cycle. Among them are revisions to how judges choose between imprisonment and probation, a substantial expansion of Zones B and C of the Sentencing Table, and sweeping changes to the definitions of “crime of violence” and “controlled substance offense” that determine who qualifies as a federal career offender.

One of the most notable proposals would expand the flexibility judges have when deciding whether a defendant should be sent to prison at all. The Commission is considering adding new commentary and a new guideline instructing courts to more deliberately weigh sentencing options before defaulting to incarceration. The proposed language emphasizes that probation is itself a punitive sentence and highlights Congress’s original intent that courts retain flexibility to tailor sentences based on individual circumstances, available rehabilitative resources, and the goals of sentencing.

In tandem with this philosophical shift, the Commission is proposing to dramatically expand Zones B and C of the Sentencing Table. Currently, these zones allow judges to substitute probation with confinement conditions or impose split sentences where part of the term is served outside prison. Under the proposal, defendants with guideline ranges reaching well beyond what is currently eligible could qualify for these alternatives. For example, in Criminal History Category I, ranges that now require prison time could become eligible for probation with confinement or split sentences reaching into multi-year ranges.

At the same time, the Commission is weighing fundamental changes to the career offender guideline, which has long been criticized for producing rigid and sometimes counterintuitive outcomes. The proposal would eliminate the traditional “categorical approach” used by courts to determine whether a prior conviction qualifies as a violent or drug offense. Instead of analyzing statutory elements in an abstract way, the Commission is considering listing specific federal crimes and creating new methods for evaluating state convictions based on how offenses are labeled or how their conduct compares to federal definitions.

The changes to the “crime of violence” definition could make it easier for prosecutors to classify prior offenses as violent by relying on offense labels or broader conduct comparisons. However, the proposal pairs this with significant new exclusions. Defendants could rebut a presumption that a conviction is violent by showing they served little or no jail time, that no serious bodily injury occurred, or that their conduct was merely reckless or negligent.

Equally significant are the potential changes to the definition of “controlled substance offense.” One option would limit qualifying offenses to a list of specific federal drug trafficking statutes, excluding state drug convictions entirely from triggering career offender status. Another option would keep state offenses but require that the prior conviction resulted in a substantial prison sentence — potentially one, three, or even five years — before it can count.

For marijuana cases, this could have a major effect. Under current rules, old state marijuana felonies for distribution, trafficking, or intent to distribute can be used to classify someone as a federal career offender years later. Under the Commission’s proposal, many of those convictions would no longer qualify, either because state offenses would be excluded altogether or because the person did not serve a lengthy prison term for the marijuana conviction.

These changes would ripple into firearm, explosives, money laundering, and immigration guidelines that currently rely on the same definitions.

Finally, the Commission is also asking for comment on whether any of these amendments, if adopted, should apply retroactively to individuals already serving federal sentences, potentially opening the door to sentence reductions for thousands of inmates whose enhancements were based in part on prior marijuana convictions.

Taken together, the proposals signal a possible shift in federal sentencing away from rigid incarceration mandates and toward greater judicial discretion, while also reworking one of the most severe enhancement mechanisms in the guidelines system. Public comments will help determine how far the Commission ultimately goes before final amendments are submitted to Congress in May.