SCOTUS 4 EVERYONE

It's interesting to see the court lead with a divided case this early in the term. If you're really into statutory tracing and AEDPA procedures, this case is for you! Otherwise... pass! 🙃

Justice Gorsuch and three other conservatives dissent on the general theory that AEDPA does not, in fact, set out federal prisoner exceptionalism and all do-over habeas claims should be treated the same way.

BOWE v. U.S. - last week scotus published an opinion on an extremely technical matter of habeas procedure which can arise on AEDPA-mandated appellate review of a prisoner's second or successive attempt(s) at post-conviction relief...🧵 supremecourt.gov/opinions/25pdf…

CLARK v. SWEENEY. Per curium. The party presentation principle requires courts to serve as neutral arbiters of matters the parties present. Courts can't grant relief on claims never asserted and not briefed... This comes as a surprise to the Fourth Circuit? No breakdown needed😿

DOE v. DYNAMIC PHYSICAL THERAPY. Per curium. Friendly reminder that, no, States cannot immunize healthcare providers from federal claims. "Judges in every State are bound to follow federal law... anything in laws of any State notwithstanding." supremecourt.gov/opinions/25pdf…

Scotus seems to expect as much. Seven justices want the lower courts to work through the merits of habeas petitions before the AEA removals continue, and at least four (Barrett + liberals) seem outright opposed to all AEA-based removals. We will keep you posted! 🤙

And we have to ask: who are these noncitizens? Like, are we SURE they are alien enemies? Gang members? Unlawful residents? Surely most would expect these questions to be resolved with reasonably high confidence prior to removal to prison in El Salvador… right?

The AEA bypasses ordinary removal procedures provided under other federal laws—like the Immigration and Nationality Act—which typically require relatively slow and costly litigation before an immigration judge for each removal.