Friday, August 21, 2009

What Counts as an Original Habeas Petition in the Supreme Court?

On Monday, the Supreme Court took the highly unusual step of (sort of) granting an "original" habeas corpus petition, i.e., a petition filed directly with the SCOTUS rather than coming up through the lower federal courts. The Court sent the case of Troy Davis to a federal district court in Georgia for an evidentiary hearing into whether Davis, who is on death row, is innocent of the murder for which he was convicted. (Most of the key witnesses have recanted.) The Court's terse order produced a sharp disagreement between Justices Scalia and Thomas, who dissented from it (here), and Justices Stevens, Ginsburg and Breyer, who endorsed it (here). I'll have a FindLaw column up on the case next week, but for now I want to flag one special peculiarity of the case. (The case is described ably here.)

In the course of responding to Justice Scalia's claim that one of the limitations of the Anti-Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act ("AEDPA") would bar any legal relief for Davis, Justice Stevens says that AEDPA might not even apply to original petitions in the Supreme Court. In my column, I'll analyze this hypothesis, but here I want to note the oddity of even characterizing what the district court will be doing as considering a case falling within the Supreme Court's original habeas jurisdiction.

To see the problem and Justice Stevens's potential circumvention of it, we need to understand where the Court normally gets the authority to issue writs of habeas corpus in the first place. After all, Marbury v. Madison says that Congress cannot expand the original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, and issuing habeas petitions is not one of the categories of original jurisdiction listed in Article III. One solution favored by some academics is to say that individual Supreme Court Justices could grant habeas petitions without offending Marbury. That's not as much of a gimmick as it sounds, given that in the early Republic, individual Justices frequently acted in a non-S Ct capacity when riding Circuit. The problem is that the current habeas statute has a separate provision conferring jurisdiction on individual Justices in addition to the provision conferring jurisdiction on the Court as a whole. So we must revert to the classical answer, which was given by CJ John Marshall in 1807 in Ex Parte Bollman: When the Supreme Court grants a habeas petition, it is exercising appellate jurisdiction, not original jurisdiction, at least as far as Article III is concerned.

Now we have to ask what the relationship is between the S Ct and the district court in Davis. In order for the evidentiary hearing that will be conducted within the district court to count as part of an original petition case in the Supreme Court, we need to say that for Article III purposes the SCOTUS is exercising appellate jurisdiction over the district court (or perhaps over the Georgia state courts, but that would fly in the face of numerous S Ct statements denying that federal habeas is an "appeal" from the state courts), while for statutory purposes, the district court is a kind of adjunct of the Supreme Court, much in the way that district courts utilize magistrates and the Supreme Court itself utilizes special masters in the boundary dispute cases that fall within its (Article III) original jurisdiction. I suppose that the Supremes have sufficient supervisory power over district judges to enlist them as special masters or their equivalents. But if so, the Davis order is still odd in that it nowhere states that the district court is being used as anything other than a district court.

Posted by Mike Dorf

12 comments:

Paul Scott said...

Constitutionality aside there seems to me to be a large difference between a claim of actual innocence where - as the majority writes - “no court,” state or federal, “has ever conducted a hearing to assess the reliability of the score of [postconviction] affidavits that, if reliable, would satisfy the threshold showing for a truly persuasive demonstration of actual innocence,” on one hand and a similar claim where - as the dissent claims - "State Supreme Court, a State Board of Pardons and Paroles, and a Federal Court of Appeals have all considered the evidence Davis now presents and found it lacking."

One (or both) have their procedural history very wrong.

Michael C. Dorf said...

They're both right in their way. Scalia is right that the state supreme court evaluated the affidavits in some detail and found that they didn't warrant a live hearing. Stevens is also right, therefore, that "no court" has held a "hearing" to evaluate the evidence, for while the state board of pardons and paroles did hear live witnesses, it is not a "court." (I agree with Stevens that this is more than a technical distinction: Such boards have a great deal of discretion and are often quite slanted against petitioners.)

Paul Scott said...

Hmm. I am unsure what the value of live testimony is if the affidavits themselves are not compelling enough.

I agree as to the SBPP - I doubt very much they did an uncolored review. If the State SC thoroughly reviewed and found the affidavits so lacking, however, it seems to me that Stevens is being somewhat misleading - even if technically correct.

What was the role of the Federal Court of Appeals?

Michael C. Dorf said...

The federal appeals court hasn't looked at this evidence because it's barred by various procedural limits of AEDPA. That's why Davis filed an original petition in the S Ct (although my view is that if he's entitled to relief, he should be entitled to that relief in the district court too). All will be explained in the findlaw column!

Paul Scott said...

I eagerly await!

酒店經紀ㄚ君姐姐 said...

,,領檯姐.,便服店,,

kelly said...

放鬆心情自由自在的來一趟花蓮旅遊,可以感受花蓮民宿各種不同的風味,所以來花蓮一定要住花蓮民宿哦!因為可從花蓮民宿主人那裡分享到不一樣的花蓮旅遊的經驗以及品嚐花蓮美食道地的花蓮小吃,所以來花蓮旅遊不一定就要享受花蓮高級餐廳的花蓮美食也可以多試試道地古早味的花蓮美味哦!來花蓮民宿可以放鬆整個心情,來花蓮電腦住宿也可以放空自已,來花蓮也可以了解在地的文化哦!住民宿其實是很輕鬆的,住花蓮民宿其實是很容易,還有就是現在是高油價的時代,還自行開車來花蓮嗎?來花蓮租車會比較輕鬆哦!來花蓮房屋租車會比較省錢哦!或是可以請花蓮計程車帶您包車旅遊喔!!歡迎來住住美麗的花蓮民宿囉!!一定要讓您來花蓮旅遊並且讓您愛上花蓮民宿,還有團購美食好吃的蜂蜜蛋糕、養顏美容的蜂王乳以及花蓮美食喔!!

eda said...

情趣按摩棒,自慰套,角色扮演,按摩棒,跳蛋,跳蛋,
.,.,

情趣,性感丁字褲,情趣,角色扮演服,吊帶襪,丁字褲,情趣用品,跳蛋,男女,
潤滑液,SM,內衣,性感內衣,自慰器,充氣娃娃,AV,
按摩棒,電動按摩棒,飛機杯,視訊,自慰套,自慰套,情趣用品,情趣內衣,

J&D said...

情趣用品/情趣

正妹視訊/網頁設計/情趣用品

情趣用品/情趣用品/情趣


威而柔/自慰套/自慰套/SM/充氣娃娃/充氣娃娃/潤滑液/飛機杯/按摩棒/跳蛋/性感睡衣/威而柔/自慰套/自慰套/SM/充氣娃娃/充氣娃娃/潤滑液/飛機杯/按摩棒/跳蛋/性感睡衣/

自慰器/自慰器/煙火/影音視訊聊天室

色情遊戲/寄情築園小遊戲/情色文學/一葉情貼圖片區/情人視訊網/辣妹視訊/情色交友/成人論壇/情色論壇/愛情公寓/情色/舊情人/情色貼圖/色情聊天室/色情小說/做愛/做愛影片/性愛/

狗熊克星 said...

這波人妻藝人隆乳當中岳庭是非常成功的一個例子,天生有點雞胸,為了挽救大小奶的窘況,以及順便解決雞胸的困擾,所以才會決定進行隆乳,在和醫師充份的討論之後決定了隆乳手術的流程,這是一個十分成功的手術,若您也想要有美美的胸型歡迎來電洽詢有福囉即可完成最新技術蘿蔔腿手術也可以變成鳥啊卡酷喔讓蘿蔔腿變成有完美比例的腿最新技術可輕鬆達成電波拉皮是利用電波加熱原理可以讓你變年輕電波拉皮是畫時代的科技也是女性朋友的福音



您有需要專業的服務嗎本公司專精於的技術對於網路排名技術的演進無論是排名行銷或是進而到搜尋引情排名的網頁優化這些都是屬於自然搜尋的部份,如果您有這方便的需求可以和我們聯絡現在網路發達與進步使的變的非常的重要沒有排名即沒有曝光即是網路排名的另一個名詞至於排名行銷是什麼呢就是將您的公司網站做網頁優化之後再做搜尋引情的自然搜尋排名到第一頁,本公司專精於seo領域發展出來網路行銷關鍵字排名 SEO服務 網站優化 網站建設 網頁設計 的專業網路行銷公司seo網路行銷策略 搜尋行銷等服務 提供關鍵字網站優化排名..等SEO業務 請來電洽詢麥克先生拍樂得seo提供關鍵字軟體, seo軟體..等服務,關鍵字SEO軟體,又叫關鍵字軟體可輕自已做關鍵字seo排名如果你大馬路上seo因享有

什麼是呢?中文的意思是搜尋引擎最佳化的排名優化也是和seo的意思一樣都是指網路排名我們所提供的是全面性的排名行銷服務,對內幫助您的網站做網頁優化對外做搜尋引情自然搜尋的排名讓你的網站和搜尋引情談戀愛本公司專精於的工作,工程師常常為了做客戶的而忙到三經半夜網路排名的工作真的非常的繁鎖,我們提供完整的排名行銷服務從您公司網站的網頁優化到搜尋引情排名的自然搜尋都是我們所擅長的剛出社會工作的年輕人最大的夢想關鍵字到底是什麼玩意兒呢

喜洋洋 said...

高雄縣徵信商業同業公會
南部徵信聯盟
外遇觀測站
大愛離婚諮詢網
離婚大剖析
大愛徵信有限公司
尋人專家徵信服務網
女人徵信公司
華陀徵信
離婚協助中心
跟蹤蒐證徵信器材網
抓姦觀測
大愛徵信
溫馨徵信
成功徵信社

喜洋洋 said...

高雄縣徵信商業同業公會
南部徵信聯盟
外遇觀測站
大愛離婚諮詢網
離婚大剖析
大愛徵信有限公司
尋人專家徵信服務網
女人徵信公司
華陀徵信
離婚協助中心
跟蹤蒐證徵信器材網
抓姦觀測
大愛徵信
溫馨徵信
成功徵信社