Supreme Court limits federal prisoners' ability to bring some post-conviction challenges

[mahatmakanejeeves]

Last edited Thu Jun 22, 2023, 11:29 AM - Edit history (1)

Source: CNN

Supreme Court limits federal prisoners' ability to bring some post-conviction challenges

By Ariane de Vogue, CNN Supreme Court Reporter
Published 10:31 AM EDT, Thu June 22, 2023

Washington (CNN) -- The Supreme Court on Thursday upheld the conviction of a federal prisoner who argued he should be able to challenge his 27-year sentence for firearms possession based on changes in the law since his trial.

The court's decision will make it harder for federal prisoners to bring certain types of post-conviction challenges.

Justice Clarence Thomas wrote the 6-3 opinion in the case. The three liberal justices, Elena Kagan, Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson, dissented.

This story is breaking and will be updated.

Read more: https://www.cnn.com/2023/06/22/politics/prisoner-firearms-conviction-case-supreme-court/index.html

---

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/22pdf/21-857_4357.pdf

[quote]
an hour ago
And we have Jones v. Hendrix.
Amy Howe

an hour ago
It is the final decision of the day.
Amy Howe

an hour ago
Here's the final opinion for today: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/22pdf/21-857_4357.pdf
Ellena Erskine

an hour ago
It is by Justice Thomas, and the vote is 6-3. Sotomayor and Kagan dissent; Jackson also dissents.
Amy Howe

an hour ago
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.
Amy Howe

an hour ago
The court holds that Jones cannot proceed under 28 USC 2241, the general habeas corpus statute.
Amy Howe

an hour ago
Wow, Sotomayor and Kagan issue a joint dissent. That is unusual.
WhatLikeItsHard

an hour ago
Do you have these summaries ready to go, copy and paste?
JerryL

an hour ago
Has Justice Thomas ever ruled in favor of a prisoner, including in habeas cases?!
Justice Thomas
[/quote]

[Renew Deal]

1. I'm a little surprised that there is a split on this as described.

Changes to the law shouldn't impact existing sentences whether they are longer or shorter. Also, there is an option for these prisoners if governors want to take them by commuting sentences.

[Igel]

3. I find the split reasonable.

Kagan, Sotomayor, Jackson focus on outcome, not process.

How thorough-going the focus on process is on a gradient--it's not a hard-and-fast rule.

The dissent sides with the accused and convicted.

The majority sides with process. "You know or should know what you did is wrong, then if you did it, it's wrong." The "ignorance of the law is no excuse" claim (of course, nobody wants to argue that if I'm unaware of the de-facto law when I screw over my 1040 that ignorance of the law is an excuse).

Otherwise I agree with you: If I violate the law in 2000 I violate the law--if it's changed in 2001, you know, I effing broke the law and I'm a transgressor. (I have trouble with retroactively extending the statute of limitations--that SoL is there for a reason and if I had to defend myself against an accusation from 40 years ago ... You know, I couldn't since I have no idea how to find anybody from 1983, esp. since many are dead and I've forgotten their names).

[bucolic_frolic]

2. 5A implies citizens can always refuse to cooperate and that they can question their predicament

Snuffing your day in court before you're allowed to ask for it stifles your ability to stand up for yourself. This ruling is heavy-handed and imperious. Citizens cannot be stripped of the right to defend themselves. It's a legal argument at least as old as English political philosopher Thomas Hobbes. Shame on all Conservative Justices once again.

[raging moderate]

4. Actually, they are Reactionary justices.

They want to return us to the state of the country 60 years ago. Except for the much lower taxes that billionaires have nowadays.