The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit heard oral argument on April 9, 2026, in Sean "Diddy" Combs' appeal of his federal sentence on two Mann Act convictions [1]. The panel pressed attorneys on both sides over whether the district court judge improperly factored acquitted conduct into the sentencing calculus, and the judges characterized the matter as "exceptionally difficult" without issuing a ruling from the bench [1].
Combs was convicted in July 2025 of two counts under the Mann Act, 18 U.S.C. § 2421, which prohibits transporting individuals across state lines to engage in prostitution or other sexual activity [1]. The jury acquitted him of the more serious racketeering and sex trafficking charges in that same proceeding [1]. Judge Arun Subramanian of the Southern District of New York presided over sentencing, and Combs' appellate attorneys argued before the Second Circuit that Subramanian relied on the acquitted racketeering and sex trafficking conduct, rather than limiting his analysis to the offenses of conviction, when determining the sentence [1].
The central legal question mirrors a fault line that runs across federal sentencing practice. Under the advisory U.S. Sentencing Guidelines, district courts have historically been permitted to consider uncharged and even acquitted conduct as relevant conduct when calculating a Guidelines range, provided the judge finds the conduct proven by a preponderance of the evidence. Critics argue the practice allows the government to effectively punish defendants for offenses the jury rejected. The issue has drawn separate attention from members of the Supreme Court in recent terms, though the Court has not categorically prohibited the practice. The Second Circuit panel, which included Judge William Nardini, questioned whether the record supported the government's position that Subramanian confined his analysis to the counts of conviction [1]. Appellate attorney Christy Slavik argued on Combs' behalf before the panel [1].
The government, represented by the DOJ's Southern District of New York office, defended the sentence and the district court's methodology [1]. Neither side obtained a clear signal of the panel's inclination during argument.
A written opinion from the Second Circuit could carry weight beyond this case. If the panel holds that Subramanian improperly relied on acquitted conduct, the matter would likely be remanded for resentencing. A ruling endorsing that practice, or clarifying its limits, would add circuit-level authority to an area of federal sentencing law that remains contested and that courts across the country navigate without a definitive Supreme Court resolution.