chevron-down Created with Sketch Beta.

Criminal Justice Magazine

Winter 2025

Supreme Court Cases of Interest

Joel Johnson

Summary

  • New grants of certiorari
  • Oral argument in Garland v. VanDerStok
  • Oral argument in Glossip v. Oklahoma
Supreme Court Cases of Interest
Rudy Sulgan via Getty Images

Jump to:

Pending Supreme Court Criminal Law and Procedure Cases to Date

The October 2024 Term is underway, with nine new criminal cases on the docket. Six of those cases present questions concerning the interpretation of penal statutes, a category of cases that has been prominently featured on the Court’s criminal docket in recent years. Another case—Barnes v. Felix—focuses on what constitutes excessive force under the Fourth Amendment. The grant of certiorari in Barnes ends a nearly four-year drought of Fourth Amendment cases on the Court’s docket.

During the October sitting, the Court heard argument in Garland v. VanDerStok, a case concerning whether the definition of “firearm” under the Gun Control Act of 1968 covers untraceable weapons commonly called “ghost guns,” which can be made from kits and parts sold online that can be assembled in as little as 20 minutes. Because some manufacturers of those kits and parts asserted that they were not “firearms” subject to the Act, they sold them without serial numbers, transfer records, or background checks. In response, in 2022, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives issued a rule that makes clear that these “ghost gun” kits constitute firearms subject to the Act. The question for the Court in VanDerStok is whether that rule represents the best reading of the statute. Based on oral argument, a majority of justices appears poised to conclude that “ghost guns” are covered by the Act, consistent with the 2022 rule.

The October sitting also featured oral argument in Glossip v. Oklahoma, a case concerning the death penalty for an Oklahoma death-row inmate convicted for a 1997 murder-for-hire. The question for the Court is whether the execution may move forward in light of newly revealed information that may have aided his defense. The state’s Republican attorney general agrees with Glossip that the information was wrongly withheld by prosecutors and that he is therefore entitled to a new trial. The Court appointed an amicus curiae to defend the judgment below. One lurking difficult issue is whether the state court’s decision rests on an “adequate and independent state ground” that would preclude the Court’s review altogether. No clear consensus emerged from oral argument on that issue or on the outcome of the case more generally.

Federal Criminal Law—Firearms Regulation

Garland v. VanDerStok, No. 23-852

Argument: October 8, 2024

Questions Presented:

(1) Whether “a weapon parts kit that is designed to or may readily be completed, assembled, restored, or otherwise converted to expel a projectile by the action of an explosive,” 27 C.F.R. 478.11, is a “firearm” regulated by the Gun Control Act of 1968; and (2) whether a “partially complete, disassembled, or nonfunctional frame or receiver” that is “designed to or may readily be completed, assembled, restored, or otherwise converted to function as a frame or receiver,” 27 C.F.R. 478.12(c), is a “frame or receiver” regulated by the Act.

Capital Punishment—Due Process

Glossip v. Oklahoma, No. 22-7466

Argument: October 9, 2024

Questions Presented:

(1) Whether the state’s suppression of the key prosecution witness’ admission that he was under the care of a psychiatrist and failure to correct that witness’ false testimony about that care and related diagnosis violate the due process of law under Brady v. Maryland and Napue v. Illinois; (2) whether the entirety of the suppressed evidence must be considered when assessing the materiality of Brady and Napue claims; (3) whether due process of law requires reversal where a capital conviction is so infected with errors that the state no longer seeks to defend it; and (4) whether the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals’ holding that the Oklahoma Post-Conviction Procedure Act precluded post-conviction relief is an adequate and independent state-law ground for the judgment.

Federal Criminal Law—Penalties

Delligati v. United States, No. 23-825

Argument: November 12, 2024

Question Presented:

Whether attempted murder, in violation of the Violent Crimes in Aid of Racketeering statute, 18 U.S.C. 1959(a)(5), qualifies as a crime of violence under 18 U.S.C. 924(c)(3).

Federal Criminal Law—Fraud

Kousisis v. United States, No. 23-909

Argument: December 12, 2024

Questions Presented:

(1) Whether deception to induce a commercial exchange can constitute mail or wire fraud, where inflicting economic harm on the victim was not the object of the scheme; (2) whether a sovereign’s statutory, regulatory, or policy interest is a property interest when compliance is a material term of payment for goods or services; and (3) whether all contract rights are “property.”

Federal Criminal Law—Sentencing

Hewitt v. United States, No. 23-1002

Argument: January 13, 2025

Question Presented:

Whether the First Step Act’s sentencing reduction provisions apply to a defendant originally sentenced before the act’s enactment, when that original sentence is judicially vacated and the defendant is resentenced to a new term of imprisonment after the act’s enactment.

Federal Criminal Law—False Statements

Thompson v. United States, No. 23-1095

Argument: January 14, 2025

Question Presented:

Whether 18 U.S.C. § 1014, which prohibits making a “false statement” for the purpose of influencing certain financial institutions and federal agencies, also prohibits making a statement that is misleading but not false.

Fourth Amendment—Excessive Force

Barnes v. Felix, No. 23-1239

Argument: January 22, 2025

Question Presented:

Whether courts should apply the “moment of the threat” doctrine when evaluating an excessive force claim under the Fourth Amendment.

Collateral Review—Jury Trial

Perttu v. Richards, No. 23-1324

Argument: February 25, 2025

Question Presented:

Whether, in cases subject to the Prison Litigation Reform Act, prisoners have a right to a jury trial concerning their exhaustion of administrative remedies where disputed facts regarding exhaustion are intertwined with the underlying merits of their claim.

Federal Criminal Law—Sentencing

Esteras v. United States, No. 23-7483

Argument: February 25, 2025

Question Presented:

Whether, even though Congress excluded 18 U.S.C.§ 3553(a)(2)(A) from 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)’s list of factors to consider when revoking supervised release, a district court may rely on Section 3553(a)(2)(A) factors when revoking supervised release.

    Author