The Supreme Court’s recent actions have led to significant developments in two pivotal cases—the review of a death-row inmate’s trial and the acceptance of a new case regarding the First Step Act. The decisions were revealed in conjunction with the court’s orders from its May 28 conference.
In the matter of the death-row inmate, Gary Whitton, the court has remanded the case to the lower courts for a reassessment. Whitton was sentenced to death in Florida, primarily based on the testimony of jailhouse informant Jake Ozio. This testimony has been challenged after it was discovered that Ozio’s claim of a clean criminal record was false. Whitton’s plea for federal post-conviction relief argued that the prosecutors were aware of the false testimony and that it possibly influenced the jury’s decision. The Supreme Court’s unsigned opinion emphasized that DNA evidence, not available during the original trial, should not have been considered by the appellate court when evaluating the potential impact of Ozio’s testimony on the jury’s decision. Consequently, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit has been tasked with reconsidering the case without factoring in this new evidence (case details).
Simultaneously, another significant decision involves William Maxwell, a federal inmate who sought relief under the First Step Act. Convicted for his role in the fraudulent takeover of a Texas mortgage company, Maxwell petitioned for home confinement, which was denied by the district court for not fully exhausting administrative remedies. After the 5th Circuit suggested a federal civil rights lawsuit was a more appropriate route, Maxwell appealed to the Supreme Court, which has now agreed to hear his case in the upcoming 2026-27 term. The core issue for the court is the determination of whether an inmate can use a habeas petition to seek accelerated release under the First Step Act (case details).
Justice Clarence Thomas dissented in the Whitton case, contending that the discrepancies in evidence were not substantial enough to warrant Supreme Court intervention. This dissent was partially shared by Justice Samuel Alito, though he did not join Thomas in critiquing the court’s inactivity in other prominent cases.
The Supreme Court’s actions underscore its ongoing role in navigating complex interpretations of both criminal justice procedures and sentencing reforms, with wide-ranging implications for federal statutes and inmate rights. The Supreme Court’s detailed orders and opinions are available in their official records (list of orders).