by Kent Scheidegger · Jun 4, 2020 5:28 pm
On May 26, I noted that the U.S. Supreme Court had denied USDOJ a stay of Ohio District Court orders regarding release of prisoners due to the pandemic. The reason was that DOJ had not checked the box of asking the court of appeals first regarding one of two orders. I also predicted that DOJ would be back if USCA6 said no. Sho’nuff.
by Kent Scheidegger · Jun 1, 2020 8:47 am
The U.S. Supreme Court this morning took a small step further down a road it has already traveled too far–bogging down federal habeas corpus cases by making them more like regular civil litigation in federal courts. The direct effect of Banister v. Davis, No. 18-6943, will not be large, but the overall problem it contributes to is huge.
by Kent Scheidegger · May 26, 2020 6:22 pm
The U.S. Supreme Court today denied the federal government’s request to stay a “jailbreak” order of a district court in Ohio. The Court’s order notes:
[O]n May 19 [the day before the stay petition], the District Court issued a new order enforcing the preliminary injunction and imposing additional measures. The Government has not sought review of or a stay of the May 19 order in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit. Particularly in light of that procedural posture, the Court declines to stay the District Court’s April 22 preliminary injunction without prejudice to the Government seeking a new stay if circumstances warrant ….
by Kent Scheidegger · May 18, 2020 7:42 am
Not much action at the high court today. The court issued one opinion in a Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act case regarding suing foreign governments for sponsoring terrorism.
The court did not take up any cases for full briefing and argument. There is a big push by a number of groups to attack the doctrine of qualified immunity and make it easier to sue police officers. That would create one more reason to discourage people from entering the field, as if there were not enough already. It would expose officers to being sued for actions that were legal under precedents in effect at the time of the action but which a creative lawyer asks a court to declare illegal. Continue reading . . .
by Kent Scheidegger · May 15, 2020 11:28 am
Last month, a splintered three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit vacated an injunction against executions issued by the D.C. District Court. See this post. Today, the court turned down the murderers’ request to rehear the case before all the active judges (except for CJ Srinivasan, who is recused). No judge of the court even called for a vote on it. Continue reading . . .
by Kent Scheidegger · May 8, 2020 9:22 am
Chief Justice Roberts has granted a 10-day stay in the controversy between USDOJ and the House Judiciary Committee on the release of grand jury materials from the Mueller probe.
Under standard procedure, the application was addressed to the Chief individually as the Circuit Justice assigned to the D.C. Circuit, where the case comes from. Continue reading . . .
by Kent Scheidegger · May 7, 2020 2:36 pm
The U.S. Supreme Court severely admonished the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit today for reaching out to recast a case to present issues not raised by the parties. The opinion was unanimous, written by Justice Ginsburg. The Ninth Circuit panel, at the time of the recasting, consisted of Judges Reinhardt, Tashima, and Berzon.
In United States v. Sineneng-Smith, No. 19-67, the high court disposed of the case saying, “we vacate the Ninth Circuit’s judgment and remand the case for reconsideration shorn of the overbreadth inquiry interjected by the appellate panel and bearing a fair resemblance to the case shaped by the parties.” In judicial-speak, that is a stern rebuke. Continue reading . . .
by Kent Scheidegger · May 4, 2020 8:04 am
The U.S. Supreme Court moved swiftly today to resolve the question of whether its April 20 decision on nonunanimous juries applies retroactively to cases on federal habeas corpus. The correct answer is clearly “no.” Continue reading . . .
by Kent Scheidegger · Apr 27, 2020 7:42 am
Whenever the Supreme Court makes a significant change in the law — as it did last week when it overruled its prior approval of nonunanimous juries in state criminal cases, see this post — the question arises of what to do about cases that have already been tried under the old rule.
Today the high court sent back a bunch of cases from Louisiana and Oregon for reconsideration in light of the Ramos case. Justice Alito noted, “I concur in the judgment on the understanding that the Court is not deciding or expressing a view on whether the question was properly raised below but is instead leaving that question to be decided on remand.” Continue reading . . .
by Kent Scheidegger · Apr 23, 2020 1:02 pm
The Supreme Court took up the case of Barton v. Barr, No. 18-725, to resolve a division of opinion among the courts of appeals regarding when a legal permanent resident alien is eligible for relief from deportation after being convicted of an offense that makes him deportable. Today the Court decided, 5-4, on the stricter of the two interpretations. Continue reading . . .
SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FEED