Category: U.S. Supreme Court

Supreme Court Takes Up Medicaid Fraud Case

by · Nov 14, 2022 10:36 am

The U.S. Supreme Court has taken up for full briefing and argument a case regarding Medicaid fraud and the Identity Theft Penalty Enhancement Act, Dubin v. United States, No. 22-10.  What is the question presented? Here is the petitioner’s version:

The federal aggravated identity theft statute provides: “Whoever, during and in relation to any felony violation enumerated [elsewhere in the statute], knowingly transfers, possesses, or uses, without lawful authority, a means of identification of another person, shall, in addition to the punishment provided for such felony, be sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 2 years.” 18 U.S.C. § 1028A(a)(1).

The question presented is whether a person commits aggravated identity theft any time he mentions or otherwise recites someone else’s name while committing a predicate offense.

And here is the respondent’s (i.e., the Government’s):

Whether sufficient evidence supported the jury’s finding that petitioner “use[d]” the means of identification of another person to commit fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C. 1028A(a)(1), by submitting a Medicaid claim invoking a specific patient’s right to reimbursement for a fictitious three-hour examination by a licensed psychologist on a date when that patient would have been eligible for the reimbursement.

Are these people talking about the same case? Continue reading . . .

Jones v. Hendrix Argument

by · Nov 1, 2022 8:44 am

The U.S. Supreme Court has concluded its oral argument in Jones v. Hendrix.  The question is whether federal prisoners who have already had an appeal and one or more collateral reviews of their convictions can use the “saving clause” of 28 U.S.C. §2255(e) to bring habeas corpus petitions in certain cases in which Congress has forbidden a successive 2255 petition.

The claim is that 2255(e) preserves claims that were traditionally cognizable in habeas despite the 1996 amendment that limited successive petitions. It is difficult to make a prediction from argument. Several of the justices said little or nothing. However, I was encouraged that some justices questioned what point in habeas history we should be looking at. The availability of habeas corpus has varied widely throughout history. The kind of claim at issue in this case would not have been cognizable in early America, as documented in our brief in this case. Continue reading . . .

No New SCOTUS Cases

by · Oct 31, 2022 9:45 am

The U.S. Supreme Court issued an orders list from last week’s conference. No new cases were taken up for full briefing and argument. There were no opinions of the Court issued and no opinions dissenting from denial of certiorari.

In other words, the orders/opinions aspect of today’s session was boring. All attention is on the oral argument in the school admission affirmative action cases being argued today.

Tomorrow, the Court will hear argument in Jones v. Hendrix, No. 21-857, asking whether Congress left a huge loophole when it cracked down on successive collateral petitions by federal prisoners. We think not. CJLF’s amicus brief is here. Unfortunately, the Solicitor General has gone over the hill and joined the defendant on the main point, although disagreeing on the details and the application to this case.

Also on tomorrow’s docket is Cruz v. Arizona, No. 21-846, regarding the way Arizona has treated past capital cases where the trial court refused to inform the jury that the defendant would not be eligible for parole if sentenced to life in prison.

Continue reading . . .

No New SCOTUS Cases

by · Oct 11, 2022 9:04 am

Today is a virtual Monday at the U.S. Supreme Court, after the Columbus Day federal holiday. The Court released an orders list from last week’s conference, but it did not take up any new cases for full briefing and argument. Justices Sotomayor, Kagan, and Jackson dissented from denial of certiorari in Thomas v. Lumpkin, No. 21-444, a capital case with a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel in jury selection.

There are no criminal cases on this month’s docket, but today the Court hears argument in the crime-related civil case of Reed v. Goertz, No. 21-442, regarding DNA testing. Continue reading . . .

Murderer Who Won SCOTUS Spiritual Advisor Ruling Faces Execution

by · Oct 5, 2022 2:00 pm

A Texas man convicted of the 2004 robbery and murder of a Corpus Christi store clerk is scheduled to be executed today.  John Ramirez won a U.S. Supreme Court ruling last March requiring states to accommodate condemned murderers’ requests to have their faith leaders pray and hold their hands in the execution chamber.  The Associated Press reports that the Texas Board of Pardons unanimously declined to commute Ramirez’s death sentence on Monday.  During a three-day drug binge, Ramirez and two female accomplices were looking for someone to rob in order to buy more drugs.  They spotted store clerk Pablo Castro emptying garbage in a convenience store parking lot and attacked him.  Ramirez stabbed Castro 29 times, then took $1.25 from the dead man’s pocket.  Nearby witnesses saw the entire incident.  Later, Ramirez held a knife to the throat of a young mother at a drive through and stole her purse and tried to rob anther woman at another drive through, who managed to escape.  CJLF filed argument in Ramirez v. Collier, urging the court to restrict civil lawsuits of this kind unless the plaintiff can show great and immediate, irreparable injury.  The Foundation’s brief is available here.  Update:  Ramirez was pronounced dead at 6:41 PM Wednesday night.

SCOTUS Begins Term, Takes Attorney-Client Privilege Case

by · Oct 3, 2022 7:45 am

The U.S. Supreme Court began its October 2022 Term today. The court released an orders list taking up nine cases for full briefing and argument. Among them is 21-1397, In re Grand Jury. The Question Presented is: “Whether a communication involving both legal and non-legal advice is protected by attorney-client privilege where obtaining or providing legal advice was one of the significant purposes behind the communication.”

The Court also took up a case involving the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act and the criminal prosecution of a corporation majority-owned by a foreign government, Turkiye Halk Bankasi A.S. v. United States, No. 21-1450. Continue reading . . .

SCOTUS’ Last Death Penalty Abolitionist Says Goodbye

by · Jun 30, 2022 8:37 pm

Over the history of the Supreme Court, only a very few justices opposed the death penalty in all circumstances:  Brennan, Marshall, Blackmun, Stevens, Ginsburg and Breyer.  Today, the last remaining member of that group, Justice Breyer, retired, leaving the Court without a single categorical opponent of the death penalty for the first time in decades.  I believe we now have the most pro-DP Court of my lifetime.

Justice Breyer was pretty much a down-the-line liberal on criminal justice issues, but is a modest and friendly man with a wicked sense of humor, and never had the driven and angry edge to him that many abolitionists do.  It remains to be seen whether his replacement, Justice Brown Jackson, will match his intellect and fair-minded outlook.  We can hope, and we wish her the best as she begins her tenure on the Court.

 

Damage Control in SCOTUS on “Indian Country”

by · Jun 29, 2022 1:31 pm

The U.S. Supreme Court today decided a major case on prosecution jurisdiction in Oklahoma v. Castro-Huerta, No. 21-429. This is an example of the Court in damage-control mode. An earlier, disruptive, and legally dubious decision has had severe impacts on criminal justice. Rather than overrule it, the Court acts to limit the damage.

Two years ago, the Court decided 5-4 in McGirt v. Oklahoma that large portions of that state were still “Indian country”* because Congress had not formally diminished or disestablished the original reservations, even though the land in question had not been part of a reservation in practice for a very long time. Continue reading . . .

Deference, Discovery, and Making AEDPA Actually Reduce Delay

by · Jun 21, 2022 2:21 pm

When Congress enacted the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996, the first title was habeas corpus reform. It was intended to achieve the “effective death penalty” part by drastically cutting the delays in carrying out capital sentencing, at least the part attributable to the federal courts.

It did not work because it was not properly implemented. But 26 years later we may finally see that change. Today’s decision of the Supreme Court in Shoop v. Twyford, No. 21-511 is a large step in that direction. Continue reading . . .