Wednesday, March 02, 2011

My Unanimous Supreme Court "Victory"

By Mike Dorf


Last week, in Walker v. Martin, the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously reversed a 9th Circuit habeas corpus ruling.  I know what you're thinking: What else is new?  But wait.  Although the result in the case is pro-government, it turns out that the Court reaffirmed an important pro-habeas-petitioner principle--and did that unanimously too.

Martin was convicted of murder and robbery and sentenced to life imprisonment.  After some procedural wrangling, he filed a state habeas petition seeking a new trial based on the claim that his lawyer had provided ineffective assistance of counsel, but he did so nearly 5 years after his conviction had become final.  Instead of ruling that Martin had had constitutionally adequate counsel, the California Supreme Court dismissed his state habeas petition as untimely, under a state rule that requires that such petitions be filed in a "reasonable" time.  Martin then made the same claim in federal court (as the federal habeas statute allows).  California argued that Martin was not entitled to federal habeas relief because he had failed to preserve his objections by properly presenting them to the state courts.  In habeas lingo, the state argued that Martin--having unduly delayed filing in state court--was "procedurally barred" from filing in federal court.

Under longstanding Supreme Court case law, when a state asserts a procedural bar of this sort, the federal courts do not grant habeas relief (absent exceptions not relevant here), so long as the state procedural rule which the habeas petitioner is alleged to have violated is "adequate."  The core idea here is that states are entitled to insist that prisoners comply with their procedural rules for presenting claims, but that federal courts must be sensitive to the possibility of states making up bogus procedural rules to defeat federal claims.  The "adequacy" inquiry guards against the latter possibility.

Martin argued--and the 9th Circuit agreed--that California's "reasonable time" requirement was so unclear in principle and was applied so inconsistently in practice that it did not constitute a bona fide state procedural rule.  Instead, the 9th Circuit concluded, California was selectively or perhaps arbitrarily invoking the reasonableness requirement so as to defeat federal rights (like the right to effective counsel at issue in the Martin case).

The SCOTUS unanimously disagreed.  A standard like reasonableness (as opposed to a rule like file-within-one-year) can be consistently applied, Justice Ginsburg explained for the Court, even though some relatively lengthy periods of delay are deemed reasonable while some relatively short periods of delay are deemed unreasonable.  That's just part of what it means to have a standard, the Court concluded.  And certainly, the Court said, California could deem a nearly five-year delay "unreasonable."  Thus, the Court found that California's application of its procedural bar was in fact adequate.

So, how is this a victory for habeas petitioners?  It's a victory insofar as Martin avoided losing in a more spectacular fashion.  The warden and an amicus for him had argued that the Court should simply chuck the adequacy inquiry altogether, characterizing it as a relic of a bygone era when state courts were hostile to the assertion of federal rights.  Alarmed by this suggestion, and concerned that abolition of the adequacy inquiry would wreak havoc with a larger set of doctrines governing Supreme Court jurisdiction, I filed a brief on behalf of myself and some other federal courts scholars urging the Court not to eliminate adequacy review of state procedural bars in habeas cases.  And on that issue, we won!  The Court said:

Today’s decision, trained on California’s timeliness rule for habeas petitions, leaves unaltered this Court’s repeated recognition that federal courts must carefully examine state procedural requirements to ensure that they do not operate to discriminate against claims of federal rights.

That's a small victory to be sure, but in this business, you take your wins where you can.

18 comments:

Joe said...

Congrats and such victories, and on some level no need for quotes, are important. Sometimes, you remember what you have and the fact you take it for granted doesn't mean it is not free from threat.

JP Andreas, Pres. A.C.L.P. said...

Having a bit of experience here I couldn't agree more. Though it may be arduous for the courts to deal with the Constitutional arguments of death row prisoners, on whose behalf such petitions are most often filed, the High Court's ruling here protects the critical right of Habeus Corpus, (a right as foundational to our Republic as uncensored Freedom of Speech). jp

Crispian said...

Yes, congratulations. It sounds like a reasonable decision (pun intended).

I would appreciate any thoughts on the Snyder v. Phelps decision. It strikes me that the majority gave short shrift to Frisby v. Schultz. I'm not sure the plaintiff's should have won on the facts but neither am I convinced the First Amendment need be implicated in such a case.

JP Andreas, Pres. A.C.L.P. said...

Crispian,

I SO enjoy your comments and level-headed way of looking at things! My sentiments exactly! Since there isn't a topic on here and since my posts always get deleted would love for you to share your comments on my Snyder analysis at my blog. You can check it out at
americanlawandpolicy.blogspot.com

jp

Derek said...

Congratulations! That would have been a disaster.

allkindsofhandbags said...

Having a bit of experience here I couldn't agree more. Though it may be arduous for the courts to deal with the Constitutional arguments of death row prisoners, on whose behalf such petitions are most often filed, the High Court's ruling here protects the critical right of Habeus Corpus, (a right as foundational to our Republic as uncensored Freedom of Speech). 2945abc45 0305
discount coach outlet

hermes wallet

grlampton said...

Looking over your brief, linked in your comment, it appears you argue two things: the Court should not dispense with the adequacy inquiry in procedural default cases, and the Court should not adopt "fair notice" as the test of when a procedural rule is adequate to bar federal review of a habeas claim.

Looking at Martin, it appears you are correct, the Court has not dispensed with adequacy review entirely. However, the Court does appear to be moving in the direction of limiting adequacy review to some notion of fair notice.

So what do you think? What standard is the Court going to use to determine whether a state procedural rule is adequate to bar federal review of a habeas claim?

Shelia Smithson said...

Scotus does not agree unanimously. Similar to the standard of fairness (as opposed to the standard as the file-within a year) may be applied consistently, Justice Ginsburg said the Court, although some relatively long delay is considered reasonable, but there are some short periods of unreasonable delay. It just part of what it means to be a standard, the judge said. And certainly, the court said, California could be considered almost five years of delay unreasonable." Thus, the Court held that application of California procedural bar was really pretty.

Bill Walton said...

The Scot did not agree unanimously. As a reasonable level (as opposed to a rule as a file in a year) can be applied uniformly, Justice Ginsburg said the Court, despite some relatively long periods of delay is reasonable that some periods are relatively short considered undue delay. It's part of what it means to have a standard, the Court concluded. And indeed, the Court said, California can be considered a period of almost five years unreasonable. Therefore, the Court held that application of California procedural bar was a sufficient factualWOW GoldWOW Items GoldBuy WOW ItemsCheap WOW ItemsTera Goldbuy tera goldTera GoldBuy WOW Gold

chengnuo said...

If yourrrve been acquiring Cheap RS Gold chances are you'll realize that you will need to receive Seriously precious metal without having to be suspended. In the event that Seriously people are interested legitimate and find affordable Seriously
WOW Gold EU while in the quickest way they will take the Gold for WOW aspects note.

johnson said...

My Unanimous Supreme Court "Victory"

the cambridge satchel|satchel cambridge|cambridge satchel|cambridge satchel company|the cambridge satchel company|cambridge satchel bags|cambridge satchel company bag|cambridge leather satchel|women ugg boots on sale|英文seo

marly aaran said...

Well, very good post with informative information. I really appreciate the fact that you approach these topics from a stand point of knowledge and information. This is the first time, I visited at your site and became your fan. You are bookmarked. Please keep on posting.
www.accessibletechnology.org |

Milla Brain said...

I enjoy what you guys are usually up too. This type of clever work and exposure! Keep up the amazing works guys I’ve incorporated you guys to my personal blogroll.
isid |

obat herbal said...

gejala penyakit gonore pada pria obat generik kencing nanah di apotik alat kelamin keluar nanah herbal denature nanah keluar dari kemaluan cara mengobati penyakit kencing nanah obat penyakit raja singa untuk pria keluar cairan nanah dari kemaluan

herbal medicine said...

cara mengobati kanker payudara kanker payudara obat kanker payudara herbal cara herbal mengobati penyakit kanker herbal kanker apakah obat tekanan darah penyebab

nimi parker said...

I¡¦ve been exploring for a little bit for any high-quality articles or blog posts on this sort of house . Exploring in Yahoo I finally stumbled upon this site. Reading this info So i¡¦m satisfied to express that I’ve a very excellent uncanny feeling I discovered exactly what I needed. I such a lot definitely will make sure to do not overlook this site and provides it a glance on a constant basis.
thefirmforpets |

obat herbal said...

kelamin pria keluar nanah cara mengobati kemaluan keluar nanah kelamin keluar nanah alat kelamin keluar cairan nanah cara mengobati kelamin keluar nanah obat penyakit sipilis nanah keluar dari penis penyakit penis keluar nanah obat penis keluar nanah cara menngobati kencing nanah pada pria herbal gonore cara mengobati kelamin keluar nanah

obat herbal said...

Obat kencing Nanah De Nature Obat Herbal obat Kutil Kelaminobat herpes kelamin cara mengobati herpes kelamin obat herbal herpes kelamin gejala penyakit herpes kelamin