McKinney Podcast
The Federalist Society has a podcast on McKinney v. Arizona by Arizona Solicitor General O.H. Skinner, who argued the case for the State.
Category: U.S. Supreme Court
Next JLWOP Case on Conference List for Friday
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.
Cross-Border Shooting Case Decided Today
Today the U.S. Supreme Court held in Hernandez v. Mesa that the parents (citizens of Mexico) of a teenager (also a citizen of Mexico) who was shot and killed by a U.S. Border Patrol Agent on the Mexican side of the U.S.-Mexico border are prohibited from suing the agent for damages under the U.S. Constitution.
CJLF originally joined the case in 2017 to encourage a decision denying the lawsuit. We argued that in a case involving relations between the U.S. and a foreign country, the judicial branch should not step in but should leave the matter to Congress. CJLF’s amicus curiae brief in that case (Hernandez I) is available here.
Major Death Penalty Decision in McKinney
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.
Malvo, Mootness, and Munsingwear
As noted in my post earlier today, the Virginia Legislature has enacted a law that eliminates, for that state, the dispute underlying the U.S. Supreme Court case of Mathena v. Malvo, No. 18-217. There is no doubt that the case should now be removed from the Supreme Court’s docket, leaving the issue to be decided in another case. It does matter how this is done, however.
Virginia had successfully asked the Court to take up the case to decide this question:
Did the Fourth Circuit err in concluding that a decision of this Court (Montgomery) addressing whether a new constitutional rule announced in an earlier decision (Miller) applies retroactively on collateral review is properly interpreted as modifying and substantially expanding the very rule whose retroactivity was in question?
Virginia then proceeded to argue that the answer is “no.” That is correct, in my opinion, and it remains correct despite the legislative change mooting the underlying question. Why should this erroneous precedent stand until the Supreme Court is able to decide the issue in another case?
Virginia Legislature Moots D.C. Sniper, Jr. Case
The Virginia Legislature has passed, and today the Governor signed, a bill creating the possibility of parole for anyone who commits any number of murders if the killer is even one day short of his eighteenth birthday at the time of the last crime.
Among the beneficiaries of this ill-considered legislation is Lee Malvo, the younger of the D.C. Sniper pair who murdered twelve people during their 2002 reign of terror. Malvo’s case is presently before the Supreme Court, but in light of the legislation the parties have stipulated for it to be dismissed.
Who You Gonna Appeal To?
When the legislative or executive branches of government violate the Constitution, we generally look to the courts for correction. But where do you go when a rule of the Supreme Court itself violates the Constitution?
The Constitution gives the Supreme Court original jurisdiction over, among other cases, suits between States. See Art. III, § 2, cl. 2. Congress has made that jurisdiction exclusive, i.e., a State can’t file its suit against another State anywhere else. See 28 U.S.C. § 1251(a). Yet the Supreme Court’s Rule 17 requires States to ask permission to file an original suit there. Is that constitutional? I have long believed it is not, and today I have some distinguished company. But where would an aggrieved State appeal this question?
Mass Murderer Seeks SCOTUS Stay Over Video Spat
Yesterday’s News Scan noted the case of Texas quintuple murderer Able Ochoa. The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals denied his stay request Monday. Now he has gone to the U.S. Supreme Court, case No. 19-7572, stay application 19A876.
The reason that the highest court of the land should stop the execution of long overdue justice for a man who murdered five people in his own family, including his two baby daughters, is that the prison wouldn’t let him make a video for his clemency application. Really, I’m not making that up.
March U.S. Supreme Court Arguments
The U.S. Supreme Court has released its calendar of March oral arguments. Only one is an actual criminal case.
On March 23, the joined cases of United States v. Briggs, No. 19-108 and United States v. Collins, No. 19-184 will address the statute of limitations for rape under military law.
One Injunction to Rule Them All
Justice Gorsuch concurred in today’s Supreme Court order regarding the “public charge” rule for immigration, writing an opinion discussing the broader problem of nationwide injunctions. And he managed to work in a Lord of the Rings allusion. Nice touch.
Continue reading . . .
SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FEED