on May 29, 2013 at 10:51 am
Yesterday the Court issued two opinions in argued cases. In Trevino v. Thaler, the Court held that when a state’s procedural framework makes it highly unlikely in a typical case that a defendant will have a meaningful opportunity to raise on direct appeal a claim that his trial counsel provided ineffective assistance, the good cause exception recognized in Martinez v. Ryan applies, while in McQuiggin v. Perkins it held that actual innocence, if proved, serves as a gateway through which a habeas petitioner may pass whether the impediment to consideration of the merits of a constitutional claim is a procedural bar or the expiration of the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act statute of limitations. Kali summarizes the two opinions for this blog. Additional coverage of McQuiggin comes from Jaclyn Belczyk of Jurist, Debra Cassens Weiss of the ABA Journal, and Kent Scheidegger of Crime and Consequences. Further coverage of Trevino comes from Debra Cassens Weiss of the ABA Journal, Michael Doyle of McClatchy, Jaclyn Belczyk of Jurist, and Kent Scheidegger of Crime and Consequences.
Other coverage focuses on yesterday’s order list, including the cases in which the Court granted and denied review. Lyle Denniston covers the order list for this blog, while NPR’s Nina Totenberg and Greg Stohr of Bloomberg Businessweek report on the Court’s denial of review in a pair of cases stemming from Indiana’s efforts to cut off Medicaid funding for Planned Parenthood because the organization provides abortion services.
Jaclyn Belczyk of Jurist covers two of yesterday’s grants, in Rosemond v. United States, in which the Court will consider what proof federal prosecutors must offer to gain an added prison sentence for an individual convicted of aiding and abetting the firing of a gun during a drug crime or crime of violence, and Mississippi v. AU Optronics Corp., in which the Court will clarify the authority of state governments to sue in state courts to protect their residents from alleged price fixing; Kent Scheidegger also covers the Rosemond grant at Crime and Consequences.
- Maura Dolan and David Savage of the Los Angeles Times report that the lawyers who led the challenge to California’s Proposition 8 have been preparing state officials for the possibility that the Court could dismiss the case without deciding it on the merits; following up on that article, Rick Hasen suggests at his Election Law Blog that, “if the case is dismissed, then Judge Walker’s statewide injunction would stand.”
- The editorial boards of the Washington Times and Investor’s Business Daily urge the Court to grant review in Sears v. Butler — a class action lawsuit against manufacturers of environmentally-friendly front-loading washing machines that the Justices will consider at their May 30 Conference.
- At Dorf on Law, Mike Dorf discusses last week’s cert. grant in Town of Greece v. Galloway, in which the Court will consider whether a legislative prayer practice violates the Establishment Clause notwithstanding the absence of discrimination in the selection of prayer-givers or forbidden exploitation of the prayer opportunity.
- In an op-ed for Jurist, Kenneth S. Gallant discusses what extraterritorial application of a statute means, in the context of the Court’s recent decisions in Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Petroleum and Morrison v. National Australia Bank.
- And Tony Mauro reports for the National Law Journal that Justice Alito’s son is clerking for Judge Brett Kavanaugh on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit.
Disclosure: John P. Elwood, who writes frequently for this blog, represents the petitioner in Rosemond v. United States. Also, in Kiobel, Goldstein & Russell, P.C. represented Achmed et al. and the Center for Justice and Accountability as amici curiae in support of the petitioners.
If you have (or know of) a recent article or post that you would like to have included in the round-up, please send a link to roundup [at] scotusblog.com so that we can consider it.