Supreme Court Oral Arguments

United States v. Tsarnaev Wikipedia · Justia (with opinion) · Docket · oyez.org Argued on Oct 13, 2021.Decided on Mar 4, 2022. Petitioner: United States.Respondent: Dzhokhar A. Tsarnaev. Advocates: Eric J. Feigin (for the Petitioner) Ginger D. Anders (for the Respondent) Facts of the case (from oyez.org) In 2013, Dzhokhar Tsarnaev and his brother detonated two homemade pressure cooker bombs near the finish line of the race, killing three and injuring hundreds. He was sentenced to death for his role in the bombings, but the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit threw out his death sentences on the grounds that the district court should have asked potential jurors what media coverage they had seen about Tsarnaev’s case, and the district court should not have excluded from the sentencing phase evidence that Tsarnaev’s brother was involved in a separate triple murder. Question Did the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit err in vacating the death sentence for the district court’s failure to ask prospective jurors for a specific accounting of the pretrial media coverage they had seen, heard, or read, and for its exclusion of evidence at the sentencing phase of trial that Tsarnaev’s brother had been involved in different crimes two years before the bombing? Conclusion The First Circuit improperly vacated Tsarnaev’s capital sentences. Justice Clarence Thomas authored the 6-3 majority opinion of the Court.  The district court did not abuse its discretion during jury selection when it declined to ask every prospective juror what they learned from the media about the case. The district court has substantial discretion during jury selection, and it was reasonable for the court to conclude that the proposed question wrongly emphasized what a juror knew before coming to court rather than revealing potential bias. The “supervisory authority” of federal courts does not allow them to “create prophylactic supervisory rules that circumvent or supplement legal standards” established by the Supreme Court. Additionally, the district court did not abuse its discretion when it excluded from sentencing the evidence that Tsarnaev’s brother was possibly involved in an unsolved triple homicide. A district court has the discretion to exclude evidence “when its probative value is outweighed by the danger of creating unfair prejudice, confusing the issues, or misleading the jury.” The bare inclusion of this evidence risked producing a “confusing mini-trial” about an unsolved crime in which all witnesses were dead. Justice Amy Coney Barrett authored a concurring opinion, in which Justice Neil Gorsuch joined, noting her skepticism about the “supervisory authority” of federal courts of appeals. Justice Stephen Breyer authored a dissenting opinion, in which Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan joined. Justice Breyer argued that the district court abused its discretion by excluding the evidence of the brother’s involvement in the unsolved triple homicide because, in his view, the record does not adequately support the court’s conclusions that the evidence lacks probative value, is insufficient to corroborate the brother’s role in the murders, is a waste of time, and would confuse the jury.

Babcock v. Kijakazi Justia (with opinion) · Docket · oyez.org Argued on Oct 13, 2021.Decided on Jan 13, 2022. Petitioner: David Bryon Babcock.Respondent: Kilolo Kijakazi, Acting Commissioner of Social Security. Advocates: Neal Kumar Katyal (for the Petitioner) Nicole F. Reaves (for the Respondent) Facts of the case (from oyez.org) David Babcock enlisted in the Michigan National Guard in 1970 and served for 3.5 years. After his service, Babcock went to flight school and received his pilot’s license, then returned to work as a National Guard dual-status technician, where he worked for over 33 years, including an active-duty tour in Iraq between 2004 and 2005. (Under 10 U.S.C. § 10216(a)(1), a National Guard dual-status technician “is a Federal civilian employee” who “is assigned to a civilian position as a technician” while a member of the National Guard.) Babcock retired from his position in 2009, at which time he began receiving Civil Service Retirement System (CSRS) payments and, separately, military retirement pay from the Defense Finance and Accounting Service. He fully retired in 2014 and at that point, applied for Social Security retirement benefits. On his application, he confirmed that he was receiving monthly CSRS payments. The Social Security Administration (SSA) granted his application but reduced his benefits because of his CSRS pension. Babcock asked the SSA to reconsider the reduction, noting that members of a uniformed service were not generally subject to the reduction in benefits (under the Windfall Elimination Provision, or WEP), and that as a dual-status technician, he qualified for that exception. SSA refused to change its initial determination, an administrative law judge (ALJ) upheld the determination, and then the Appeals Council affirmed the ALJ’s decision. A federal district court entered judgment against Babcock, and the appellate court affirmed. Question Is a civil service pension received for federal civilian employment as a “military technician (dual status)” considered “a payment based wholly on service as a member of a uniformed service” for the purposes of the Social Security Act’s windfall elimination provision? Conclusion Civil-service pension payments based on employment as a dual-status military technician are not payments based on “service as a member of a uniformed service” for the purposes of the windfall elimination provision. Justice Amy Coney Barrett authored the 8-1 majority opinion of the Court. While the National Guard of the United States is a uniformed service, prior to 1984, it hired technicians (including Babcock) as civil servants. These technicians possess characteristically civilian rights and were properly considered civilians rather than service members. Although Babcock did serve at other times as a member of the National Guard, his civil-service pension payments were not based on that service. Therefore, those payments are not payments based on “service as a member of” the National Guard and are thus not subject to the exception Social Security Act’s uniformed-services exception. Justice Neil Gorsuch dissented, arguing that National Guard technicians hold a unique position in federal employment because they must maintain membership in the National Guard and wear a Guard uniform, they should be considered “members.”

Cameron v. EMW Women’s Surgical Center Justia (with opinion) · Docket · oyez.org Argued on Oct 12, 2021.Decided on Mar 3, 2022. Petitioner: Daniel Cameron, Attorney General of Kentucky.Respondent: EMW Women's Surgical Center, P.S.C., et al.. Advocates: Matthew F. Kuhn (for the Petitioner) Alexa Kolbi-Molinas (for the Respondents) Facts of the case (from oyez.org) Dilation and extraction (D&E) is the standard method of abortion used in the second trimester of pregnancy, accounting for 95% of second-trimester abortions nationwide. Kentucky House Bill 454 requires patients to undergo a procedure to end potential fetal life before they may receive an abortion using the D&E method. Kentucky’s only abortion clinic and two of its doctors filed a lawsuit challenging the law, arguing that it violates patients’ constitutional right to abortion prior to fetal viability. All defendants except then-Secretary of Kentucky’s Cabinet for Health and Family Services, Adam Meier, and Commonwealth Attorney Thomas B. Wine, were voluntarily dismissed prior to trial. After a five-day bench trial, the district court ruled for the plaintiffs and entered a permanent injunction. In the meantime, governor Matt Bevin was replaced by Andy Beshear and Meier was replaced by Eric Friedlander. On appeal, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit affirmed the district court, and the new Health Secretary declined to continue defending the law. Daniel Cameron, the Kentucky attorney general, asked the Sixth Circuit for permission to intervene to defend the law, but the court declined. Question Should a state attorney general vested with the power to defend state law be permitted to intervene after a federal court of appeals invalidates a state statute when no other state actor will defend the law? Conclusion The Kentucky attorney general should have been permitted to intervene on the Commonwealth’s behalf in litigation concerning Kentucky House Bill 454. Justice Samuel Alito wrote the opinion on behalf of the 6-3 majority. Justices Elena Kagan and Stephen Breyer concurred in the judgment but did not join the majority opinion. No provision of law limits the jurisdiction of federal appellate courts to allow intervention by a party who was not part of the litigation—the state attorney general in this case. Nor is there a mandatory claims-processing rule that precludes the attorney general’s intervention. Contrary to the conclusion of the court below, the attorney general’s motion to intervene was not “untimely,” as he filed as soon as the secretary for Health and Family Services decided not to defend the law. Finally, allowing the attorney general to intervene would not cause unfair prejudice to the parties, so the appellate court erred in denying the attorney general’s motion to intervene. Justice Clarence Thomas authored a concurring opinion making the additional point that the attorney general was not a “party” to the district court’s final judgment thus negating a premise of the respondents’ jurisdictional argument. Justice Kagan, joined by Justice Breyer, concurred in the judgment because, in their view, granting the attorney general’s motion to intervene would not be an “end-run around the timely-appeal rule” but a product of the timing of the litigation and a new need for the attorney general to enter the suit. Justice Sonia Sotomayor dissented, arguing that while the majority acknowledges that courts have “sound discretion” to permit or disallow intervention, it “nonetheless bends over backward to accommodate the attorney general’s reentry into the case.” Justice Sotomayor expressed concern that the decision would broadly allow government officials to “evade the consequences of litigation decisions made by their predecessors of different political parties.”

Thompson v. Clark Wikipedia · Justia (with opinion) · Docket · oyez.org Argued on Oct 12, 2021.Decided on Apr 4, 2022. Petitioner: Larry Thompson.Respondent: Pagiel Clark, et al.. Advocates: Amir H. Ali (for the Petitioner) Jonathan Y. Ellis (for the United States, as amicus curiae, supporting the Petitioner) John D. Moore (for the Respondents) Facts of the case (from oyez.org) Camille Watson was staying with her sister and her sister’s husband, Larry Thompson, when she dialed 911 after seeing a diaper rash on the couple’s infant daughter and mistaking the rash for signs of abuse. In response, two Emergency Medical Technicians (EMTs) arrived at Thompson’s apartment building to investigate. The EMTs saw nothing amiss, and, unaware of Camille’s 911 call, Thompson told the EMTs that no one in his home had called 911. He asked the EMTs to leave, and they did. Four police officers followed up to investigate the alleged child abuse and insisted on seeing Thompson’s daughter. Thompson asked to speak to the officers’ sergeant, and after being denied that request, asked whether the officers had a warrant (which they did not). Nevertheless, they physically tried to enter Thompson’s home, and when Thompson attempted to block the doorway, the officers tackled and handcuffed him. He was arrested and taken to jail, where he spent two days. He was charged with resisting arrest and obstructing governmental administration, and about three months later, the prosecution dropped the charges against him, stating that “People are dismissing the case in the interest of justice.” Thompson filed a Section 1983 malicious prosecution claim against the police officers involved. A federal district court granted judgment as a matter of law in favor of the defendants on Thompson’s malicious prosecution claim due to his failure to establish favorable termination of his criminal case, which is required under binding Second Circuit precedent. The appellate court affirmed. Question Must a plaintiff who seeks to bring a Section 1983 action alleging unreasonable seizure pursuant to legal process show that the criminal proceeding against him “formally ended in a manner not inconsistent with his innocence,” or that the proceeding “ended in a manner that affirmatively indicates his innocence”? Conclusion A plaintiff wishing to bring a Section 1983 claim for malicious prosecution, need only show that his prosecution ended without a conviction. Justice Brett Kavanaugh authored the 6-3 majority opinion holding that Thompson satisfied that requirement and reversing the judgment of the lower court. To succeed on a claim of malicious prosecution under Section 1983, a plaintiff must show: (1) the suit or proceeding was instituted without probable cause, (2) the motive in instituting the suit was malicious—that is, for a purpose other than bringing the defendant to justice, and (3) the prosecution terminated in the acquittal or discharge of the accused. The purposes of this third element—favorable termination of the underlying criminal case—are: (a) to avoid parallel civil and criminal litigation, (b) to prevent inconsistent civil and criminal judgments, and (c) to prevent civil suits from being improperly used as collateral attacks on criminal proceedings. Most American courts have considered a favorable termination to mean simply a prosecution that ends without conviction and cannot be revived. Thus, if the prosecutor abandons the case or the court dismisses the case without stating a reason, these satisfy the third element of a malicious prosecution claim. Acquittal of the defendant is not required. Respondents’ claims to the contrary are not persuasive. Justice Samuel Alito authored a dissenting opinion, in which Justices Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch joined. Justice Alito argued that the majority’s analysis is cursory and erroneously relies on lower court cases “heavily influenced by a mistaken reading of the plurality opinion in Albright v. Oliver, 510 U.S. 266 (1994).”

United States v. Zubaydah Wikipedia · Justia (with opinion) · Docket · oyez.org Argued on Oct 6, 2021.Decided on Mar 3, 2022. Petitioner: United States.Respondent: Zayn al-Abidin Muhammad Husayn, aka Abu Zubaydah, et al.. Advocates: Brian H. Fletcher (for the Petitioner) David F. Klein (for the Respondents) Facts of the case (from oyez.org) Zayn Husayn, also known as Abu Zubaydah, is a former associate of Osama bin Laden. U.S. military forces captured him in Pakistan and detained him abroad before moving him to the detention facility at Guantanamo Bay, where he is currently being held. Zubaydah alleged that, before being transferred to Guantanamo, he was held at a CIA “dark site” in Poland, where two former CIA contractors used “enhanced interrogation techniques” against him. Zubaydah intervened in a Polish criminal investigation into the CIA’s conduct in that country, and he sought to compel the U.S. government to disclose evidence connected with that investigation. The government has declassified some information about Zubaydah’s treatment in CIA custody, but it has asserted the state-secrets privilege to protect other information. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit rejected the government’s assertion of state-secrets privilege based on its own assessment of potential harms to national security and allowed discovery in the case to proceed. Question Did the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit err in rejecting the federal government’s assertion of the state-secrets privilege based on its own assessment of the potential harms to national security that would result from disclosure of information pertaining to clandestine CIA activities? Conclusion The Ninth Circuit erred in holding, based on its own assessment, that the state secrets privilege did not apply to information that could confirm or deny the existence of a CIA detention site in Poland. Justice Stephen Breyer authored the 7-2 majority opinion. To invoke the state secrets privilege, the government must show a reasonable danger of harm to national security. In a declaration supporting its claim of privilege, the Government submitted a declaration from the Director of the CIA stating that a response to the discovery requests would significantly harm our national security interests by confirming or denying the existence of a CIA detention site in Poland. Although some publicly available sources claim that such a site exists, the CIA has made no official statement. The specific language of Zubaydah’s discovery requests would elicit information that tends to confirm or deny the existence of such a site, so the government is entitled to invoke the state secrets privilege in response to those requests. Justice Breyer, writing on behalf of himself, Chief Justice John Roberts, and four other Justices, would dismiss the application for discovery. Justice Clarence Thomas authored an opinion concurring in part and concurring in the judgment, in which Justice Samuel Alito joined. Justice Thomas argued that Zubaydah’s “dubious” need for discovery requires dismissal of his discovery application regardless of the government’s reasons for invoking the state secrets privilege. Justice Brett Kavanaugh authored an opinion concurring in part, in which Justice Amy Coney Barrett joined. Justice Kavanaugh clarified the process by which a court assesses invocation of the state secrets privilege, with great deference to the Executive Branch. Justice Elena Kagan authored an opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part, arguing that even when the government meets its burden of showing a “reasonable danger” of harm to national security (as she agreed it did in this case), that does not require dismissal of the case. Rather, it is possible to segregate the classified location information from the unclassified treatment information and allow discovery of the latter. Justice Neil Gorsuch authored a dissenting opinion, in which Justice Sonia Sotomayor joined. Justice Gorsuch pointed out that the events took place two decades ago and have since been declassified and the subject of numerous books, movies, and official reports. As such, while dismissing the suit might save the government “embarrassment,” doing so will not “safeguard any secret.”

Brown v. Davenport Wikipedia · Justia (with opinion) · Docket · oyez.org Argued on Oct 5, 2021.Decided on Apr 21, 2022. Petitioner: Mike Brown, Acting Warden.Respondent: Ervine Davenport. Advocates: Fadwa A. Hammoud (for the Petitioner) Tasha Bahal (for the Respondent) Facts of the case (from oyez.org) A Michigan jury convicted Ervine Lee Davenport of first-degree murder in 2008. He challenged his conviction in a habeas corpus petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 because at trial he was restrained at the waist, wrist, and ankles, although there was a privacy curtain around the defense table. The State admitted that the visible restraints were unconstitutional but argued that the error was harmless. The Michigan Court of Appeals agreed, finding that while it was error for the trial court to order the defendant to be restrained without justification, Davenport had not shown that his restraints were visible to the jury and thus failed to show prejudice. The Michigan Supreme Court reversed and remanded, and on remand, five jurors testified that they saw the shackles and two others had heard comments about the shackles. Nevertheless, the trial court concluded that although some jurors saw the shackles, the prosecution had proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the shackling did not affect the jury’s verdict. The court of appeals affirmed, and the Michigan Supreme Court denied leave to appeal. Davenport challenged the conviction in federal court, and the district court denied the petition and certificate of appealability. Davenport petitioned the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit for a certificate of appealability, which the court granted. Noting that “shackling is inherently prejudicial,” the Sixth Circuit concluded that the State had not met its burden to show that the restraints did not have a “substantial and injurious effect or influence in determining the jury’s verdict” and reversed. Question What is the appropriate standard of review for a federal court deciding whether to grant habeas relief? Conclusion A federal court deciding whether to grant habeas relief must apply both the test the Supreme Court outlined in Brecht v. Abrahamson, 507 U.S. 619, and the one Congress prescribed in the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (AEDPA). Justice Neil Gorsuch authored the 6-3 majority opinion of the Court holding that the Sixth Circuit erred in granting relief based solely on its application of the Brecht standard. Since the founding, Congress has authorized (but not required) federal courts to issue writs of habeas corpus “as law and justice require.” In response to an evolving use of the writ, the Supreme Court in Brecht v. Abrahamson held that a state prisoner seeking federal habeas relief must show that the constitutional error had a “substantial and injurious effect or influence on the verdict.” Congress subsequently further reformed the writ in passing AEDPA, which is a constitutionally valid rule of decision. AEDPA instructs that federal courts shall not grant relief for a claim adjudicated in state court unless the state court’s decision was (1) contrary to clearly established law or (2) based on an unreasonable determination of the facts. Notably, Congress left intact the tradition whereby federal courts have discretion to grant relief if “law and justice require.” The test outlined in Brecht is different from the requirements of AEDPA; proof of prejudice under Brecht does not satisfy AEDPA. Moreover, the materials a court may consult when considering each test are different. As such, a court must apply both tests when reviewing a habeas claim. Justice Elena Kagan authored a dissenting opinion, in which Justices Stephen Breyer and Sonia Sotomayor joined. Justice Kagan argued that the Court twice, in 2007 and again in 2015, stated that the Brecht standard “obviously subsumes” the “more liberal” AEDPA standard and that if a defendant meets the former, he will “necessarily” meet the latter, too. Justice Kagan pointed out that every Justice has subscribed to that position in prior decisions and that requiring courts to apply both tests is unnecessarily burdensome and “will never lead to a different result” from application of the Brecht test alone.

Hemphill v. New York Wikipedia · Justia (with opinion) · Docket · oyez.org Argued on Oct 5, 2021.Decided on Jan 20, 2022. Petitioner: Darrell Hemphill.Respondent: New York. Advocates: Jeffrey L. Fisher (for the Petitioner) Gina Mignola (for the Respondent) Facts of the case (from oyez.org) In April 2006, two men got into a fight with several other people on a street in the Bronx. Shortly thereafter, someone opened fire with a 9 millimeter handgun, killing a child in a passing car. Three eyewitnesses identified Nicholas Morris as the shooter. Police searched Morris’s home and found a 9 millimeter cartridge and ammunition for a .357 revolver. They arrested him the next day. He was indicted for the child’s murder and for possession of a 9 millimeter handgun, but the prosecution ended in a mistrial. Instead of trying him again, the State offered Morris a deal: If Morris pleaded guilty to possessing a firearm at the scene of the shooting, the State would request that the murder charge be dismissed with prejudice. Morris accepted the plea deal. However, the State charged Morris with possessing a .357 revolver at the scene of the shooting, rather than a 9 millimeter established as the murder weapon. The prosecution lacked sufficient evidence to establish possession of the .357 revolver, so Morris supplied the evidence through his own statement. In 2013, the state charged Darrell Hemphill, the petitioner in this case who was also present at the fight in the Bronx, with the murder. At trial, Hemphill elicited testimony that police had recovered the 9 millimeter cartridge on Morris’s nightstand hours after the shooting. In response, the prosecution sought to introduce into evidence Morris’s statement that he possessed a .357 revolver at the scene. Based in part on this evidence, Hemphill was found guilty of second-degree murder and sentenced to twenty-five years to life in prison. An appellate court affirmed the conviction, as did New York’s highest court. Question When, if ever, does a criminal defendant who “opens the door” to evidence that would otherwise be barred by the rules of evidence also forfeit his right to exclude evidence otherwise barred by the Confrontation Clause? Conclusion A criminal defendant does not forfeit his confrontation right merely by making an argument in his defense based on a testimonial out-of-court statement like a plea allocution. Justice Sonia Sotomayor authored the 8-1 majority opinion of the Court. The Confrontation Clause of the U.S. Constitution guarantees criminal defendants the right to confront witnesses against them, and the Court has recognized no open-ended exceptions to this requirement—only those exceptions established at the time of the founding. In People v. Reid, New York’s highest court held that a criminal defendant “opens the door” to evidence that would otherwise be inadmissible under the Confrontation Clause if the evidence was “reasonably necessary” to correct a misleading impression made by the defense’s argument. Contrary to the State’s contention, the Reid rule is not merely procedural, but a substantive principle of evidence that dictates what material is relevant and admissible. Such an exception is antithetical to the Confrontation Clause. Justice Samuel Alito authored a concurring opinion, in which Justice Brett Kavanaugh joined, to note different circumstances under which a defendant can be deemed to have waived the right to confront adverse witnesses. Justice Clarence Thomas dissented, arguing that because Hemphill did not raise his Sixth Amendment claim in the New York Court of Appeals, the Court lacks jurisdiction to review its decision.

Mississippi v. Tennessee Justia (with opinion) · Docket · oyez.org Argued on Oct 4, 2021.Decided on Nov 22, 2021. Petitioner: State of Mississippi.Respondent: State of Tennessee, et al.. Advocates: John V. Coghlan (On Behalf of the Plaintiff) David C. Frederick (On Behalf of the Defendant) Frederick Liu (for the United States as Amicus Curiae, in Support of Overruling Plaintiff's Exceptions) Facts of the case (from oyez.org) The State of Mississippi sued the State of Tennessee in 2014, alleging that Tennessee was taking Mississippi’s groundwater by allowing a Tennessee utility company to pump large amounts of groundwater from the Middle Claiborne Aquifer, which is located at the Mississippi-Tennessee border. Mississippi argues that the groundwater stored in the aquifer lies entirely within Mississippi and would never flow into Tennessee if it were not for the pumping. Mississippi expressly disclaims any equitable apportionment remedy, arguing that the principle does not apply to this dispute. Instead it seeks only damages and related relief. The Special Master recommended that the Court dismiss the complaint but grant Mississippi leave to amend its complaint to seek equitable apportionment. Question Is Mississippi entitled to damages, injunctive, and other equitable relief for the groundwater taken by Tennessee? Conclusion Mississippi is entitled only to the remedy of equitable apportionment, and since its complaint expressly disclaimed equitable apportionment, its complaint is dismissed without leave to amend. Chief Justice John Roberts authored the unanimous opinion of the Court. Equitable apportionment is a judicial remedy that seeks to fairly allocate a shared water resource between two or more states. Although the Court has not previously considered whether the doctrine of equitable apportionment applies to interstate aquifers, it has applied the remedy when transboundary water resources were at issue, and the same reasoning applies. First, like other transboundary water resources, the Middle Claiborne Aquifer has a “multistate character.” Second, it contains water that naturally flows between the states. And third, actions taken in Tennessee affect the portion of the aquifer that underlies Mississippi. For these reasons, equitable apportionment applies to the waters of the Middle Claiborne Aquifer.

Wooden v. United States Wikipedia · Justia (with opinion) · Docket · oyez.org Argued on Oct 4, 2021.Decided on Mar 7, 2022. Petitioner: William Dale Wooden.Respondent: United States. Advocates: Allon Kedem (for the Petitioner) Erica L. Ross (for the Respondent) Facts of the case (from oyez.org) In 1997, William Wooden broke into a mini-storage facility in Georgia and stole from 10 different units, resulting in 10 counts of burglary, to which he pled guilty. Then, in 2014, a plainclothes officer went to Wooden’s home, where he witnessed Wooden in possession of a rifle. Wooden was arrested and charged in state court with being a felon in possession of a firearm, but the case was dismissed when the district attorney noted that there was no probable cause for Wooden’s arrest. Wooden was subsequently charged by federal indictment with being a felon in possession of a firearm and ammunition, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) and 924(e). After Wooden was found guilty, the district court found during his sentencing hearing that Wooden qualified as an armed career criminal under 18 U.S.C. § 924(e), based on his conviction for the 10 counts of burglary, and sentenced him to 15 years’ imprisonment accordingly. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit affirmed, finding that Wooden’s prior burglaries were separate from each other, despite occurring as part of a single criminal spree. Question Are offenses committed as part of a single criminal spree but sequentially in time “committed on occasions different from one another” for purposes of a sentencing enhancement under the Armed Career Criminal Act? Conclusion Offenses committed as part of a single criminal episode did not occur on different “occasions” and thus count as only one offense for purposes of the Armed Career Criminal Act. Justice Elena Kagan authored the majority opinion that was unanimous in the judgment to reverse the lower court. The ordinary meaning of the word “occasion” does not require occurrence at precisely one moment in time. For example, an ordinary person would describe Wooden as burglarizing ten units “on one occasion” but would not say “on ten occasions, Wooden burglarized a unit in the facility.” And indeed “Wooden committed his burglaries on a single night, in a single uninterrupted course of conduct.” The history of the ACCA confirms this understanding, as Congress added an “occasions clause,” which requires that prior crimes occur on “occasions different from one another.” This interpretation is also consistent with the purpose of the ACCA, which is to address the “special danger” posed by the “armed career criminal”—a concern not presented by the situation of a single criminal episode. Justice Sonia Sotomayor authored a concurrence noting that on the facts, she agreed with the majority that Wooden’s prior convictions did not take place on “occasions different from one another” but also with Justice Neil Gorsuch’s point that the rule of lenity provides an independent basis for ruling in favor of a defendant in a closer case. Justice Brett Kavanaugh authored a concurrence explaining why the rule of lenity has played a limited role in the Court’s criminal case law and why the presumption of mens rea addresses Justice Gorsuch’s concern about fair notice. Justice Amy Coney Barrett, joined by Justice Clarence Thomas, concurred in part and concurred in the judgment. Justice Barrett agreed with the majority about the ordinary meaning of the word “occasion” but disagreed with the majority’s interpretation of the statutory history. Justice Gorsuch authored an opinion concurring in the judgment, which Justice Sotomayor joined in part. Justice Gorsuch argued that the rule of lenity provides a definitive rule of decision in these types of cases, in contrast to a list of factors to consider, which could lead to inconsistent outcomes in cases where the facts are less clear.

Terry v. United States Wikipedia · Justia (with opinion) · Docket · oyez.org Argued on May 4, 2021.Decided on Jun 14, 2021. Petitioner: Tarahrick Terry.Respondent: United States. Advocates: Andrew L. Adler (for the Petitioner) Eric J. Feigin (for the Respondent, supporting reversal) Adam K. Mortara (Court-appointed amicus curiae, supporting the judgment below) Facts of the case (from oyez.org) Tarahrick Terry pleaded guilty to one count of possession with intent to distribute a substance containing a “detectable” amount of cocaine base (3.9 grams), thus triggering the penalties in 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(C). Based on his prior convictions, the statutory term of imprisonment was 0 to 30 years, and the district court sentenced him to 188 months’ imprisonment with 6 years’ supervised release. Terry moved for a sentence reduction on the basis that the Fair Sentencing Act of 2010 raised the weight ceiling of § 841(b) from 5 grams of cocaine base to 28 grams. The district court denied his motion, concluding that Terry did not commit a “covered offense” and thus was not eligible for relief under the First Step Act, which made retroactive the statutory penalties for certain offenses committed before August 3, 2010. Because the Fair Sentencing Act did not expressly amend § 841(b)(1)(C), Terry’s offense was not a “covered offense.” The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit affirmed. Question Do pre-August 3, 2010, crack offenders sentenced under 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(C) have a “covered offense” under Section 404 of the First Step Act? Conclusion Crack offenders sentenced under 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(C) do not have a “covered offense” under Section 404 of the First Step Act because a sentence reduction under the Act is available only if an offender’s prior conviction of a crack cocaine offense triggered a mandatory minimum sentence. Justice Clarence Thomas authored the majority opinion of the Court. An offender is eligible for a sentence reduction only if he previously received “a sentence for a covered offense,” which the Act defines as “a violation of a Federal criminal statute, the statutory penalties for which were modified by” certain provisions in the Fair Sentencing Act. The Fair Sentencing Act modified the statutory penalties only for offenses that triggered mandatory-minimum penalties. Because Terry was convicted for an offense that does not have a mandatory minimum, his offense was not a “covered offense” and thus was not eligible for a sentence reduction under the Act. Justice Sonia Sotomayor authored an opinion concurring in part and concurring in the judgment. She expressly declined to join the majority’s “sanitized” description of the history of penalties for crack offenses and pointed out that because Terry was both convicted under subparagraph (C) and sentenced as a career offender, he never had a chance to ask for a sentence that reflects today’s understanding of the lesser severity of his crime, and he never will get that chance without action by the political branches.