SCOTUS 2022-2023 Term

[kelestian]

Arizona v. Navajo Nation, 5-4. Majority written by Kavanaugh. Gorsuch joins the liberals in the dissent.

"The court holds that the treaty at issue does not require the federal government to take the affirmative steps that the Navajo Nation contends."
Pugin v. Garland, 6-3 (but not the breakdown you're expecting). Kavanaugh writes the majority again. Sotomayor dissents, joined by Kagan and Gorsuch. Jackson joins the conservatives.

"The court holds that an offense can "relate to obstruction of justice" for purposes of this statute even if the offense does not require that an investigation or proceeding is pending."
6-3, Yegiazaryan v. Smagin. Majority written by Sotomayor. Alito dissents, joined by Thomas and Gorsuch.

"This was a case involving two Russian citizens, in which the question was whether a foreign plaintiff whose only injury was to intangible property – such as a court judgment – has suffered the kind of domestic injury required to bring a claim under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act.

The Ninth Circuit ruled that the plaintiff had alleged a domestic injury, and the Supreme Court today upheld that ruling."
6-3, Jones v. Hendrix. Majority written by Thomas. Liberals dissent.

"This was a case filed by a federal inmate, Marcus Jones, who in 2000 was convicted of being a felon in possession of a firearm and was sentenced to more than 27 years in prison. In 2019, the Supreme Court ruled that the statute under which Jones was convicted requires prosecutors to show that the defendant knew that he was barred from possessing a gun – something that the government did not do for Jones, who contended that he believed that his record had been expunged. The question before the court was whether and how Jones can now challenge his detention when federal habeas corpus laws generally prohibit inmates from filing more than one petition for habeas corpus.

The court holds that Jones cannot proceed under 28 USC 2241, the general habeas corpus statute."

[This is the final opinion of the day]

Saw a lot of buzz about the last one on Twitter. Can someone explain this case for dummies?

[kelestian]

Saw a lot of buzz about the last one on Twitter. Can someone explain this case for dummies?

20 years ago, a man named Marcus Jones was convicted of possessing a firearm as a felon, which is illegal under 18 U.S.C. § 922.

He repeatedly challenged his conviction in U.S. district and circuit courts, but the courts kept denying him, including the Eighth Circuit.

Rehaif v. United States, a 2019 Supreme Court case, ruled that in order to convict someone under 18 U.S.C. § 922, the government has to prove that the defendant knew that it was illegal for them to carry a firearm.

The Supreme Court is the law of the land, meaning it overrules any lower court rulings.

As such, Marcus Jones figured "hey, this Rehaif ruling sounds pretty good for me, it pretains to the exact law I was convicted under! I'm gonna try and appeal my sentence again" since per the Court's ruling, the government has to prove that Jones knew it was illegal for him to carry a firearm as a felon. Jones has testified that he didn't know it was illegal (he incorrectly, but genuinely, thought that his record was expunged).

There is another law called Section 2255, which ordinarily prevents federal prisoners from challenging their conviction or sentence more than once.

Clarence Thomas said that Jones cannot appeal because he already tried (and failed) to do so.

The biggest problem with Thomas's ruling is that Jones' appeal happened before the Rehaif decision - meaning that the way that 18 U.S.C. § 922 (the law Jones was convicted under) has to be enforced, has changed.

Clarence Thomas basically said "too bad, so sad - Section 2255 says you can't appeal again". Even though the Supreme Court changed the way that the law he was convicted of breaking has to be enforced.

Section 2255 does have some exceptions, one of which is "unless based on either “newly discovered evidence,” §2255(h)(1), or “a new rule of constitutional law,” §2255(h)(2). 

It would seem plainly obvious that the Rehaif is an example of the latter exception. Clarnce Thomas, however, disagrees, stating that: "This argument fails because it would extend the writ of habeas corpus far beyond its scope when the Constitution was drafted and ratified. When the Suspension Clause was adopted, Jones’ Rehaif claim would not have been cognizable in habeas at all. At the founding, a sentence after conviction by a court of competent jurisdiction was in itself sufficient cause for a prisoner’s continued detention."


tl;dr, Kagan and Sotomayor sum it up well

A prisoner who is actually innocent, imprisoned for conduct that Congress did not criminalize, is forever barred by 28 U. S. C. §2255(h) from raising that claim, merely because he previously sought postconviction relief. It does not matter that an intervening decision of this Court confirms his innocence.  By challenging his conviction once before, he forfeited his freedom

/

Thanks, understand