Some context for today's retroactivity ruling:
Before it agreed to hear Ramos (in which it ruled that laws allowing convictions from non-unanimous juries are unconstitutional), dozens and likely hundreds of prisoners had previously petitioned the court . . .
Before it agreed to hear Ramos (in which it ruled that laws allowing convictions from non-unanimous juries are unconstitutional), dozens and likely hundreds of prisoners had previously petitioned the court . . .
. . . on the very same question. The court declined to hear their cases, as it does with the vast majority of petitions. So those convictions all stood.
The court's subsequent ruling in Ramos meant all those convictions were unconstitutional. But today, the court ruled that ...
The court's subsequent ruling in Ramos meant all those convictions were unconstitutional. But today, the court ruled that ...
. . . even though those prisoners' unheard arguments were correct -- their rights were indeed violated -- they're all screwed.
Not because of anything they did. Only because they're unlucky enough to have filed before the court decided it was interested in the issue.
Not because of anything they did. Only because they're unlucky enough to have filed before the court decided it was interested in the issue.
The majority rules that because the constitutional violation was procedural, it doesn't merit retroactivity, in part because it would be too difficult for the states to re-open thousands of old cases.
That's pretty f***ed up. Constitutional rights shouldn't be dependent ...
That's pretty f***ed up. Constitutional rights shouldn't be dependent ...
... on whether it's convenient for the state to respect them.
The majority also points out the court rarely grants retroactivity, and has done so on just one occasion (Gideon). That's correct! And also regrettable!
It means whether you continue to suffer the consequences of...
The majority also points out the court rarely grants retroactivity, and has done so on just one occasion (Gideon). That's correct! And also regrettable!
It means whether you continue to suffer the consequences of...
. . . the state's violation of your rights depends not on the merit of your claims, or even your adherence to procedural requirements, but whether you managed to win the certiorari lottery -- whether your rights were violated before or after SCOTUS decided to give a damn.
One more thing: Under AEDPA, SCOTUS is the only federal court permitted to hear post-conviction challenges based on novel constitutional claims. To be heard by any lower federal court, you have to make a claim based on a right SCOTUS has already articulated. And as ...
... with qualified immunity, you have to find a case that's almost absurdly similar. Post-conviction attorneys make the joke that you essentially have to find a case where your client has the same last name as the prisoner in the prior ruling.
Because SCOTUS ...
Because SCOTUS ...
... hears so few cases each year, it's extremely rare that the federal system recognizes new constitutional violations.
And because of today's ruling, even on the rare occasion it does, there will be no relief for the vast, vast majority of people already harmed by ...
And because of today's ruling, even on the rare occasion it does, there will be no relief for the vast, vast majority of people already harmed by ...
... by that violation -- people who *continue* to be harmed through their continued incarceration.
And that's all because, apparently, asking the states to stop harming those people and give them the constitutionally-compliant trials they deserve would be too darned difficult.
And that's all because, apparently, asking the states to stop harming those people and give them the constitutionally-compliant trials they deserve would be too darned difficult.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
