The Supreme Court’s new term is underway. The headline from the October sitting was that Justice Jackson, the Court’s newest member, won’t be shy about asking sharp questions. She showed herself to be a skilled and frequent questioner during her first set of arguments, uttering more than twice as many words as any other justice during the Court’s eight October arguments, according to a tally by Empirical SCOTUS blogger Adam Feldman.
The November sitting featured two criminal cases. In Cruz v. Arizona, the Court heard argument on whether the Arizona Supreme Court’ conclusion in a capital case that a state rule of criminal procedure precluded post-conviction relief is an adequate and independent state-law ground for the judgment. And in Jones v. Hendrix, the Court considered whether federal inmates who did not—because established circuit precedent stood firmly against them—challenge their convictions on the ground that the statute of conviction did not criminalize their activity may apply for habeas relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 after the Supreme Court later makes clear in a retroactively applicable decision that the circuit precedent was wrong and that they are legally innocent of the crime of conviction.
Apart from those arguments, the Court’s criminal docket has seen little activity. Indeed, the justices have granted only two new petitions in a criminal matter since the end of the last term. Notably absent from the Court’s criminal docket is any case involving a Fourth Amendment question, a usual stalwart. The last term was atypical in that it included no such case. The continued absence so far this term may suggest a trend.
The only real action so far has been a handful of opinions from several justices dissenting from denial of certiorari represent, including Justice Jackson’s first written opinion. Her two-page opinion in Chinn v. Shoop, joined by Justice Sotomayor, argued that the Court should have taken a capital case to correct the Sixth Circuit’s misapplication of the materiality standard under Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963), and Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 688 (1984).
Reed v. Goertz, No. 21-442
Argument: October 11, 2022
Question Presented:
Whether the statute of limitations for a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claim seeking DNA testing of crime-scene evidence begins to run at the end of state-court litigation denying DNA testing, including any appeals, or whether it begins to run at the moment the state trial court denies DNA testing, despite any subsequent appeal.
Cruz v. Arizona, No. 21-846
Argument: November 1, 2022
Question Presented:
Whether the Supreme Court’s decision in Lynch v. Arizona, 578 U.S. 613 (2016) (per curiam), which reversed the Arizona Supreme Court’s decision denying capital defendants the right to inform the jury of their ineligibility for parole where future dangerousness is at issue, applied a settled rule of federal law that must be applied to cases pending on collateral review in Arizona.
Jones v. Hendrix, No. 21-857
Argument: November 1, 2022
Question Presented:
Whether federal inmates who did not—because established circuit precedent stood firmly against them—challenge their convictions on the ground that the statute of conviction did not criminalize their activity may apply for habeas relief under 28 U.S.C § 2241 after the Supreme Court later makes clear in a retroactively applicable decision that the circuit precedent was wrong and that they are legally innocent of the crime of conviction.
Percoco v. United States, No. 21-1158
Argument: November 28, 2022
Question Presented:
Whether a private citizen who holds no elected office or government employment, but has informal political or other influence over governmental decision-making, owes a fiduciary duty to the general public such that he can be convicted of honest-services fraud.
Ciminelli v. United States, No. 21-1170
Argument: November 28, 2022
Question Presented:
Whether the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit’s “right to control” theory of fraud—which treats the deprivation of complete and accurate information bearing on a person’s economic decision as a species of property fraud—states a valid basis for liability under the federal wire fraud statute.
Turkiye Halk Bankasi A.S. v. United States, No. 21-1450
Question Presented:
Whether the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act of 1976 confers blanket immunity on foreign-state-owned enterprises from all criminal proceedings in the United States.
Dubin v. United States, No. 22-10
Question Presented:
Whether a person commits aggravated identity theft any time they mention or otherwise recite someone else’s name while committing a predicate offense.