SCOTUS Criminal and Related Decisions for the Term

Below is a list of decisions in criminal and related cases by the U.S. Supreme Court in the term just ended, the October 2021 Term. The capsule description for each case is from the Court’s website. It is the flyout that appears if you hover your mouse pointer over the case on the website’s decision list.

Supreme Court Criminal and Related Opinions, October Term 2021

Rivas-Villegas v. Cortesluna, No. 20-1539, decided October 18, 2021. Opinion Per Curiam
Officer Rivas-Villegas is entitled to qualified immunity in this excessive force action brought under 42 U. S. C. §1983; the Ninth Circuit’s holding that Circuit precedent “put him on notice that his conduct constituted excessive force” is reversed.

City of Tahlequah v. Bond, No. 20-1668, decided October 18, 2021. Opinion Per Curiam
Officers Girdner and Vick are entitled to qualified immunity in this excessive force action brought under 42 U. S. C. §1983; the Tenth Circuit’s contrary holding is not based on a single precedent finding a Fourth Amendment violation under similar circumstances.

Hemphill v. New York, No. 20-637, decided January 20, 2022. Opinion by Justice Sotomayor
The trial court’s admission—over Hemphill’s objection—of the plea allocution transcript of an unavailable witness violated Hemphill’s Sixth Amendment right to confront the witnesses against him.

United States v. Zubaydah, No. 20-827, decided March 3, 2022. Opinion by Justice Breyer
The Ninth Circuit’s judgment that the District Court erred in dismissing Zubaydah’s discovery request on the basis of the state secrets privilege is reversed, and the case is remanded with instructions to dismiss Zubaydah’s current discovery application.

United States v. Tsarnaev, No. 20-443, decided March 4, 2022. Opinion by Justice Thomas
The judgment of the Court of Appeals vacating Tsarnaev’s capital sentences is reversed.

FBI v. Fazaga, No. 20-828, decided March 4, 2022. Opinion by Justice Alito
Section 1806(f) of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978—providing a procedure under which a trial-level court or other authority may consider the legality of electronic surveillance conducted under FISA and order specified forms of relief—does not displace the state secrets privilege.

Wooden v. United States, No. 20-5279, decided March 7, 2022. Opinion by Justice Kagan
Wooden’s ten burglary offenses arising from a single criminal episode did not occur on different “occasions” and thus count as only one prior conviction under the Armed Career Criminal Act.

Ramirez v. Collier, No. 21-5592, decided March 24, 2022. Opinion by Chief Justice Roberts
Petitioner Ramirez is likely to succeed on his claims under the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000 because Texas’s restrictions on religious touch and audible prayer in the execution chamber burden religious exercise and are not the least restrictive means of furthering the State’s compelling interests.

Thompson v. Clark, No. 20-659, decided April 4, 2022. Opinion by Justice Kavanaugh
Petitioner Thompson’s showing that his criminal prosecution ended without a conviction satisfies the requirement to demonstrate a favorable termination of a criminal prosecution in a Fourth Amendment claim under 42 U. S. C. §1983 for malicious prosecution; an affirmative indication of innocence is not needed.

Brown v. Davenport, No. 20-826, decided April 21, 2022. Opinion by Justice Gorsuch
When a state court has ruled on the merits of a state prisoner’s claim, a federal court cannot grant habeas relief without applying both the test this Court outlined in Brecht v. Abrahamson, 507 U. S. 619, and the one Congress prescribed in the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996; the Sixth Circuit erred in granting habeas relief to Mr. Davenport based solely on its assessment that he could satisfy the Brecht standard.

Shinn v. Martinez Ramirez, No. 20-1009, decided May 23, 2022. Opinion by Justice Thomas
Under 28 U. S. C. §2254(e)(2), a federal habeas court may not conduct an evidentiary hearing or otherwise consider evidence beyond the state-court record based on the ineffective assistance of state postconviction counsel.

Egbert v. Boule, No. 21-147, decided June 8, 2022. Opinion by Justice Thomas
The authority of a court to imply a cause of action under Bivens v. Six Unknown Fed. Narcotics Agents, 403 U. S. 388, does not extend to either Boule’s Fourth Amendment excessive-force claim or his First Amendment retaliation claim.

Kemp v. United States, No. 21-5726, decided June 13, 2022. Opinion by Justice Thomas
The term “mistake” in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(1) includes a judge’s errors of law; because Kemp’s motion alleged such an error, it was cognizable under Rule 60(b)(1) and untimely under Rule 60(c)’s 1-year limitations period.

Garland v. Gonzalez, No. 20-322, decided June 13, 2022. Opinion by Justice Alito
Title 8 U. S. C. §1252(f)(1)—which generally strips lower courts of “jurisdiction or authority” to “enjoin or restrain the operation of ” certain provisions of the Immigration and Nationality Act—deprived the District Courts of jurisdiction in these cases to entertain respondents’ requests for class-wide injunctive relief.

Johnson v. Arteaga-Martinez, No. 19-896, decided June 13, 2022. Opinion by Justice Sotomayor
Title 8 U. S. C. §1231(a)(6) does not require the Government to provide noncitizens detained for six months with bond hearings in which the Government bears the burden of proving, by clear and convincing evidence, that a noncitizen poses a flight risk or a danger to the community.

Denezpi v. United States, No. 20-7622, decided June 13, 2022. Opinion by Justice Barrett
The Double Jeopardy Clause does not bar successive prosecutions of distinct offenses arising from a single act, even if a single sovereign prosecutes them.

Shoop v. Twyford, No. 21-511, decided June 21, 2022. Opinion by Chief Justice Roberts
A transportation order that allows a prisoner to search for new evidence—in this case an order compelling the State to transport Mr. Twyford to a medical facility for neurological testing—is not “necessary or appropriate in aid of” a federal court’s adjudication of a habeas corpus action when the prisoner has not shown that the desired evidence would be admissible in connection with a particular claim for relief.

United States v. Taylor, No. 20-1459, decided June 21, 2022. Opinion by Justice Gorsuch
Attempted Hobbs Act robbery does not qualify as a “crime of violence” under 18 U. S. C. §924(c)(3)(A) because no element of the offense requires proof that the defendant used, attempted to use, or threatened to use force.

Vega v. Tekoh, No. 21-499, decided June 23, 2022. Opinion by Justice Alito
A violation of the prophylactic rules described in Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U. S. 436, does not provide a basis for a claim under 42 U. S. C. §1983.

Nance v. Ward, No. 21-439, decided June 23, 2022. Opinion by Justice Kagan
Title 42 U. S. C. §1983 is the procedural vehicle appropriate for a prisoner’s method-of-execution claim even if an order granting the relief requested would necessitate a change in state law.

Xiulu Ruan v. United States, No. 20-1410, decided June 27, 2022. Opinion by Justice Breyer
For the crime of prescribing controlled substances outside the usual course of professional practice in violation of 21 U. S. C. §841, the mens rea “knowingly or intentionally” applies to the statute’s “except as authorized” clause.

Concepcion v. United States, No. 20-1650, decided June 27, 2022. Opinion by Justice Sotomayor
Section 404(b) of the First Step Act of 2018, 132 Stat. 5222, allows district courts to consider intervening changes of law or fact in exercising their discretion to reduce a sentence.

Oklahoma v. Castro-Huerta, No. 21-429, decided June 29, 2022. Opinion by Justice Kavanaugh
The Federal Government and the State have concurrent jurisdiction to prosecute crimes committed by non-Indians against Indians in Indian country.