by Kent Scheidegger · Mar 2, 2020 1:42 pm
In oral argument in the U.S. Supreme Court today, Justice Sonia Sotomayor said,
So that’s a vastly different question of whether the Suspension Clause –which predated the Due Process Clause by 100 years –the Suspension Clause, at the time, it was viewed as permitting anyone who had a legal claim to stay to file a habeas petition.
100 years?
by Kent Scheidegger · Mar 2, 2020 9:01 am
Today the U.S. Supreme Court released an orders list from last Friday’s conference. The Court took a new case on Armed Career Criminal Act sentencing to replace the deceased James Walker’s case. It relisted for this coming Friday cases to replace the withdrawn D.C. Sniper, Jr. case on juvenile life-without-parole sentencing. Finally, the Court passed, for now, on the question of whether bump stocks can be banned administratively without amending the relevant statute.
by Kent Scheidegger · Feb 28, 2020 3:08 pm
by Kent Scheidegger · Feb 27, 2020 3:36 pm
Yesterday, I noted the case of Newton v. Indiana, No. 17-1511 as a possible replacement for the recently-dropped Malvo case on sentencing juvenile murderers to life-without-parole. I have since been made aware of four other cases also listed for tomorrow’s U.S. Supreme Court conference. Update: See end of post.
by Kent Scheidegger · Feb 27, 2020 1:54 pm
The Federalist Society has a podcast on McKinney v. Arizona by Arizona Solicitor General O.H. Skinner, who argued the case for the State.
by Kent Scheidegger · Feb 27, 2020 10:59 am
Yesterday the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit decided in favor of the federal government in New York v. USDOJ, No. 19-267. The court upheld the authority of DoJ to withhold federal funds for state and local law enforcement in the Byrne Grant program from jurisdictions that refuse certain cooperation with enforcement of federal immigration law.
This decision creates a split of authority among the federal circuits, as the Seventh, Third, and Ninth Circuits have decided differently. Unless the full Second Circuit overrules the three-judge panel, the Supreme Court is likely to resolve the issue.
by Kent Scheidegger · Feb 26, 2020 3:10 pm
Siena College pollster Steven Greenberg says, “Support for the new bail law – which took effect in January after passage as part of the budget last year – continues to plummet. In April, New Yorkers thought the new law would be good for the state by 17 points. Last month, voters said the new law is bad for the state by a margin of 12 points. Today, that margin for thinking the law is bad for New York has bulged to 26 points.”
by Kent Scheidegger · Feb 26, 2020 2:25 pm
Well, that didn’t take long. On Monday the parties asked the U.S. Supreme Court to drop the now-moot juvenile life-without-parole (JLWOP) case of the D.C. Sniper, Jr., as noted in this post. I expected the Court to take up the case of Newton v. Indiana, No. 17-1511, presenting the same issue. Sure enough, after nearly a year on hold pending Malvo, the Newton case is suddenly on the conference list for this Friday.
by Kent Scheidegger · Feb 25, 2020 4:37 pm
Earlier this month we noted the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation’s pilot program to disperse death-sentenced inmates away from death row. This authority was given to CDCR in Proposition 66 to defuse the abolition advocates’ argument that keeping them in San Quentin was much more expensive than it would cost to house the same murderers if they were not sentenced to death. CDCR now has an information page on its website further explaining the pilot program.
by Kent Scheidegger · Feb 25, 2020 11:33 am
Today the U.S. Supreme Court decided two major issues in capital litigation in McKinney v. Arizona. The Court affirmed that the jury trial requirement of Ring v. Arizona applies only to the finding of an aggravating circumstance that makes a defendant eligible for the death penalty, not to the weighing process or the final sentencing decision.
The Court also reaffirmed that a state appellate court may fix a problem at trial regarding the aggravating and mitigating circumstances by reweighing them itself, rather than sending the case back for a new sentencing hearing.
SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FEED