Category: U.S. Supreme Court

Dispatch Acquires SCOTUSBlog

SCOTUSblog has been acquired by Dispatch Media. Amy Howe has this post on SCOTUSblog, and Dispatch editor Steve Hayes has this post on the Dispatch.

I am pleased to see that Amy is staying with SCOTUSblog as a member of Dispatch’s team. Her posts on SCOTUSblog and her own blog have long been my go-to source for thorough and unbiased reports on Supreme Court cases that are outside my own field of expertise.

The usual squawkers are squawking that The Dispatch is “right-wing.” See, e.g., this post at Above the Law. But a quick look at The Dispatch’s home page illustrates how meaningless such simplistic designations are. They are certainly not Trump fans. One post is titled “Trump’s Team of Losers.” The Founding Manifesto states, “The goal was to create a place where thoughtful readers can come for conservative, fact-based news and commentary that doesn’t come either through the filter of the mainstream media or the increasingly boosterish media on the right.” That’s a long way from the image usually conjured up by the term “right wing.”

Continue reading . . .

Mixed Ruling in El Salvador Case

Yesterday, the U.S. Supreme Court issued an order partly granting and partly denying the Department of Homeland Security’s application in the case of the deportation of Kilmar Abrego Garcia to El Salvador, noted in this post Monday. Here is the dispositive paragraph:

The application is granted in part and denied in part, subject to the direction of this order. Due to the administrative stay issued by The Chief Justice, the deadline imposed by the District Court has now passed. To that extent, the Government’s emergency application is effectively granted in part and the deadline in the challenged order is no longer effective. The rest of the District Court’s order remains in effect but requires clarification on remand. The order properly requires the Government to “facilitate” Abrego Garcia’s release from custody in El Salvador and to ensure that his case is handled as it would have been had he not been improperly sent to El Salvador. The intended scope of the term “effectuate” in the District Court’s order is, however, unclear, and may exceed the District Court’s authority. The District Court should clarify its directive, with due regard for the deference owed to the Executive Branch in the conduct of foreign affairs. For its part, the Government should be prepared to  share what it can concerning the steps it has taken and the prospect of further steps. The order heretofore entered by The Chief Justice is vacated.

Continue reading . . .

Venezuelan Gang Case Must Proceed in Habeas Corpus

The U.S. Supreme Court has resolved the case of deportation of Venezuelans alleged to be members of the Tren de Aragua gang, just as I said in this post on March 26. The case that arrived in the Supreme Court is the wrong type of case, filed in the wrong court, and the high court vacated it. This case must proceed in habeas corpus, and it must be brought in the district where the petitioners are detained, which is in Texas.

The opinion is here. Continue reading . . .

Supreme Court Grants Stay of Injunction for Return of Alien

The United States has sought Supreme Court review of an order of a federal district court ordering the Government to effect the return of an alien who has already been deported and is in the custody of a foreign government. The Solicitor General’s application in Noem v. Abrego Garcia, 24A949, notes the unprecedented nature of an order “dictating to the United States that it must not only negotiate with a foreign country to return an enemy alien on foreign soil, but also succeed by 11:59 p.m. tonight.” The Chief Justice stayed the district court’s order and ordered a response by tomorrow. Continue reading . . .

Victim Restitution and the Ex Post Facto Clause

“Moving the goalposts” is widely recognized as an unfair thing to do. In criminal law, the issue rises to a constitutional one. From the beginning, the Constitution has forbidden both Congress and state legislatures from passing “ex post facto laws.”* The primary, and simple, effect of this prohibition is that a legislature cannot make an act criminal or increase the punishment for it after it has been committed, i.e., “after the fact,” in Latin.

Does a law that increases the length of time in which a restitution award may be collected constitute an ex post facto law? The U.S. Supreme Court today took up a case to decide that question, Ellingburg v. United States, No. 24-482.

There are two good arguments why the answer is no. Continue reading . . .

Are State Courts Required to Accept a Confession of Error in a Capital Case?

Two years ago, in Escobar v. Texas, No. 21-1601, the Supreme Court issued a “grant, vacate, and remand” order directing the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals to reconsider its denial of relief to a death-sentenced murderer ” in light of the confession of error by Texas,” i.e., by the Travis County District Attorney. Are state courts required to accept such confessions of error, however dubious?

In California, “progressive” district attorneys have made wholesale confessions of error in capital cases just because they disagree with the decision of the people to have capital punishment. Courts have mostly rolled over and gone along with these “take a dive” actions, although last week a Santa Clara County judge did draw the line at resentencing Richard Farley for seven murders. See NBC story here. Continue reading . . .

Yes, Murder Is a Violent Offense

Last year, when the U.S. Supreme Court took up the case of Delligatti v. United States, I noted in this post the absurdity of the question. Today, the Court decided the case. Yes, murder is a “crime of violence” for the purpose of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c).

Justice Thomas wrote the opinion for the Court, joined by six other Justices. So who are two? Continue reading . . .