In this post the day after the Supreme Court's big ruling in Sessions v. Dimaya, No. 15-1498 (S. Ct. April 17, 2018) (available here), I asked "How many federal prisoners may have Dimaya claims and how many procedural challenges will they face raising them?". Though not providing a direct answer to this question, this most recent Relist Watch posting by John Elwood over at SCOTUSblog reinforces my sense that the Dimaya disruptions are likely to be plentiful and complicated. Here are amusing excerpts from John Elwood's post (with links from the original):
We have a record number of relists, at least during the seven-plus years I’ve been watching carefully: 44. Of those, 42 are cases that obviously were held for Dimaya, and now the court is trying to decide what to do with them. Just identifying all those relists on the court’s docket, and then figuring out the legal issues involved, was a big job for people who really do have other responsibilities. But although the task was a bit dull, at least it involved an enormous amount of backbreaking labor. And so let me begin where I usually end: Thanks to Kevin Brooks for identifying all the relists, and thanks to Aurora Temple Barnes for sorting through the heaps of PDFs I lobbed at her and identifying the questions presented and creating tidy case pages.
The Dimaya relists fall into three main groups. First, there are many cases that simply present the very same question as Dimaya about the constitutionality of § 16(b). This group is enormous, including Sessions v. Magana-Pena, 15-1494, Sessions v. Lopez-Islava, 15-1496, Sessions v. Miranda-Godinez, 16-398, Sessions v. Baptiste, 16-978, Sessions v. Shuti, 16-991, Gonzalez-Longoria v. United States, 16-6259, Solano-Cruz v. United States, 16-6288, Perdomo v. United States, 16-7214, Bello v. United States, 16-7667, Alvaro-Velasco v. United States, 16-8058, Castaneda-Morales v. United States, 16-8734, Maldonado-Landaverde v. United States, 16-9318, Linares-Mazariego v. United States, 16-9319, Larios-Villatoro v. United States, 16-9660, Diaz-Esparza v. Session, 17-820, Gomez-Ureaba v. United States, 17-5283, Garcia-Hernandez v. United States, 17-5305, Hernandez-Ramirez v. United States, 17-6065, Ontiveros-Cedillo v. United States, 17-6721, Gutierrez-Lopez v. United States, 17-6751, Casabon-Ramirez v. United States, 17-7183, and -- so far as we can tell (the parties haven’t gotten back to us yet), Eaton v. United States, 17-6680. These cases should have been easy to resolve by denying cert or granting, vacating and remanding for further consideration in light of Dimaya. That they were not is the clearest example that the volume was just too great.
The second group of Dimaya relists involves application of that case to a Sentencing Guidelines provision -- a type of claim the government argues is foreclosed by Beckles v. United States. Those cases include first-time relists United States v. Hernandez-Lara, 16-617, Aguirre-Arellano v. United States, 16-8675, and Rodriguez v. United States, 17-5476, as well as returning relist Robinson v. United States, 17-6877.
The third and final group of Dimaya relists involves cases that ask whether the logic of that case and Johnson v. United States invalidates 18 U.S.C. §924(c)(3)(B), yet another criminal code provision defining “crime of violence.” This week’s new relists that involve that question include Taylor v. United States, 16-6392, Prickett v. United States, 16-7373, Glover v. United States, 16-8777, Taylor v. United States, 16-8996, Davis v. United States, 16-8997, United States v. Jenkins, 17-97, United States v. Jackson, 17-651, McCoy v. United States, 17-5484, Winters v. United States, 17-5495, Lin v. United States, 17-5767, Eizember v. United States, 17-6117, Enix v. United States, 17-6340, Ecourse-Westbrook v. United States, 17-6368, and Carreon v. United States, 17-6926. The government argues that after Dimaya, these cases should be sent back to the courts of appeals to consider narrowing constructions of Section 924(c) that might resolve the constitutional issues. Unsurprisingly, criminal defendants argue that the court should just grant review on this issue. We’ll see which side prevails.
Prior related post:
Comments
Post a Comment