The Order List was longer than usual. So, we had additional writings, particularly an apparent 6-3 per curiam, summarized by Mark Joseph Stern on Bluesky this way:
By a 6–3 vote, the Supreme Court reverses a decision in favor of Pedro Hernandez, a mentally impaired man who was pressured into an allegedly false confession of murder through these👇unconstitutional tactics. The supermajority says he did not face a deprivation of "clearly established" rights.
The liberals wouldn't have taken the case. It amounts to an "error correction" of an allegedly misapplication of the rules for federal habeas appeals. Some local coverage.
Alito and Thomas would have taken or decided some crime-related cases (one involving the use of race) the other way.
Jackson followed her practice regarding not rejecting certain appeals by incarcerated people allegedly abusing the pauper's petition rules.
Sotomayor, for the liberals, would have taken a case involving a claim of intellectual disability in a capital case. Texas supported the appeal, but the Texas courts (this happened before) blocked it from happening below. Four justices earlier would have tightened the rules in such cases, so this isn't surprising.
The Supreme Court granted another so-called "Bivens" case, involving a remedy for constitutionally based abuses. The claim won below, and Bivens has been much disfavored. So, it doesn't bode well. Congress can address the situation.
We will have (signed) opinions on Tuesday and Thursday. There is likely to be at least one more opinion day. Toss is a scheduled execution.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Thanks for your .02!