The Supreme Court’s recent “Relist Watch” column highlights several cases awaiting certiorari consideration, shedding light on critical issues ranging from electoral law to the limits of judicial discretion in sentencing. One noteworthy petition, Noem v. Al Otro Lado, challenges interpretations of the Immigration and Nationality Act regarding asylum eligibility at the U.S. border. The core issue revolves around whether an individual stopped at the Mexican border has “arrived” in the United States, thus triggering specific immigration processes. The controversy has arisen due to varying interpretations by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit as they considered policies instituted during the Trump administration.
The ongoing case of Clark v. Sweeney explores the invocation of habeas relief under the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (AEDPA). In this case, Maryland officials question the 4th Circuit’s grant of habeas relief based on errors not alleged by the respondent, highlighting the court’s reliance on “special circumstances” to bypass typical habeas procedures. Maryland’s position is staunch: AEDPA’s established guardrails were violated, prompting discussions about judiciary limits and federal intervention.
Another significant case, Bartunek v. United States, raises questions about the due process and jury-trial rights connected to judicial sentencing. It probes if judges can amplify sentences based on facts not found by juries, emphasizing interest in the usage of uncharged or acquitted conduct in sentence determination. Past apprehensions expressed by some Supreme Court justices further amplify the stakes, as concerns persist over its constitutionality influenced by the U.S. Sentencing Commission’s amendments.
A structural issue, as made evident in Indiana, ex rel. Howell v. Circuit Court of Indiana, is the procedural rigmarole of cert petitions that lack a response from the opposing side, often deemed “lost causes.” The lack of a filed response typically signifies little chance for review, subtly acknowledging procedural formalities.
These recounted cases demonstrate the Supreme Court’s tightrope between legal interpretations and longstanding precedents, offering pivotal insights into potential shifts in U.S. jurisprudence. The column provides practitioners with pertinent legal strategies and judicial decision-making processes that resonate profoundly within corporate law and regulatory compliance sectors.
For more detailed insights on these cases, see the full “Relist Watch” column on SCOTUSblog.