Legal Commentary

Today?s (Apparent) Supreme Court Relisted Cases

By John Elwood

I?m confident that this is only a partial list of cases the Court has relisted.  If you know of others, I?m all ears. 

Three cases on their first relist:

Wong v. Smith, 09?1031, CA9. The Court called for the record on 9/28. The case involves whether 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d) and the Supreme Court?s ?clearly established law? permit federal habeas corpus relief on a claim that a state judge unconstitutionally ?coerces? jurors to return a guilty verdict by identifying specific evidence in the case as important and instructing them to consider it.

Alderman v. United States, 09?1555, CA9, involves the constitutionality of 18 USC § 931. (Disclosure: This petition was filed by the UVA School of Law Supreme Court Litigation Clinic, with which I?m affiliated.)

Stroud v. Blount, 09?1572, Ill. App., involves the validity of a punitive damages award under BMW v. Gore, and whether the lower court erred in rejecting the applicability of Noerr-Pennington doctrine (which, as an aside, is a great thing to cite when you need to induce puzzled looks). 

Then we have four cases that appear to be on their third relist. As a statistical matter, these seem likely to produce dissents from denial or possibly a summary reversal. 

Beer v. United States, 09?1395, CAFed. Relisted 9/27, 10/8, apparently 10/15. Whether the Compensation Clause of Article III prevents Congress from withholding the future judicial salary adjustments established by the Ethics Reform Act of 1989. 

Williams v. Hobbs, 09?10382, CA8, relisted 9/27, 10/8, 10/15. Looks like an ineffective-assistance claim in a capital case. (Thanks to commenter Scott Braden for contributing this one.) 

Allen v. Lawhorn, 10?24, CA11, Relisted 9/27, 10/8, apparently 10/15. Whether, under 28 U.S.C. §2254(d)(1), a state court?s determination that trial counsel?s waiver of a penalty-phase closing argument did not prejudice the defendant was ?contrary to? clearly established precedent of this Court.

Wilson v. Corcoran, 10?91, CA7, relisted 9/27, 10/8, apparently 10/15; the court called for the record on 10/1. 1. Does a state capital defendant have a constitutional right to a sentencing decision informed in no way by facts that are neither elements of a crime of which he stands convicted or aggravating circumstances authorized by statute? 2. If so, may a federal court grant habeas relief based on its own finding that a state trial court improperly considered non-statutory aggravators when imposing a sentence of death, contrary to the determination of the state supreme court on that issue? 

Full post as published by The Volokh Conspiracy on October 18, 2010 (boomark / email).