The Supreme Court on Monday considered whether federal prosecutors can try a defendant not only in the district where the offense occurs, but also where the crime’s “contemplated effects” are felt. During the roughly 80-minute argument in Abouammo v. United States, the justices seemed to suggest that the answer was no, with several of them pressing the government on whether its approach was both rooted in the text of the statute at issue and faithful to the Constitution.  

The Relist Watch column examines cert petitions that the Supreme Court has “relisted” for its upcoming conference. A short explanation of relists is available here.

It was a relatively quiet week at the relist window – just one grant, one denial, one apparent hold, and one new relist. Specifically, the justices granted review in Younge v. Fulton Judicial Circuit District Attorney’s Office, Georgia, a Title VII (employment discrimination) case asking whether a defendant who failed to plead an affirmative defense in its answer may nonetheless assert that defense as the basis for summary judgment, an issue that has divided the circuits. On the other end of the ledger, the court denied certiorari in Skinner v. Louisiana, drawing a dissent from Justice Sonia Sotomayor, joined by Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson. They argued that James Skinner – convicted of the same murder as co-defendant Michael Wearry, on the basis of the same withheld evidence the court had already found constitutionally fatal in Wearry v. Cain – is entitled to the same relief the court gave Wearry, and that the Louisiana courts’ one-sentence dismissal of his Brady claim as “distinguishable enough” borders on open defiance of the court’s precedents. The court hasn’t taken further action on last week’s relist in Saldano v. Texas, involving a claim that petitioner Victor Saldaño can’t be executed under the court’s precedent in Atkins v. Virginia because of intellectual disability. My best guess (and it is only that) is that the justices are holding the case pending the outcome of Hamm v. Smith, an Atkins case that was argued in December, and which prompted commentary that “Atkins is on … precarious footing.” Stay tuned – Hamm may have more to say about that.

Yesterday’s argument in Jules v Andre Balazs Properties showed a bench with some uncertainty about the jurisdiction of federal courts to enforce an arbitration award.

ScotusCrim is a recurring series by Rory Little focusing on intersections between the Supreme Court and criminal law.

Last week and the coming week are important for criminal law fans at the court. Two full-argument decisions were issued, both in favor of the defendant’s position. As I’ve noted before, the Supreme Court’s rulings do not always fall into the ideological patterns that the general public wants to impose on the justices.

Immigration Matters is a recurring series by César Cuauhtémoc García Hernández that analyzes the court’s immigration docket, highlighting emerging legal questions about new policy and enforcement practices.

The Justice Department will soon be back before the Supreme Court defending President Donald Trump’s birthright citizenship policy. The Trump administration has won most of the lawsuits over immigration matters that have reached the court, as well as last summer’s face-off touching on birthright citizenship. But unlike the citizenship policy’s first trip to the court, which focused on federal judges’ power to block presidential directives nationwide, Trump v. Barbara, scheduled for argument on April 1, directly addresses the legality of Trump’s executive order limiting who is treated as a U.S. citizen at birth. And the administration’s string of victories on immigration doesn’t necessarily smooth the path for success this time around because Barbara isn’t about immigration law at all, but it is about citizenship law. Historically, the court has been much less willing to let the president do what he likes when it comes to setting the terms of citizenship.