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
/
