Just how huge is the mess and challenge for lower federal courts after SCOTUS decisions in Davis, Haymond and Rehaif?
I feel like, in order to really understand their import, I will need weeks, maybe months, to reread and reflect on the three decisions that were big wins for federal criminal defendants handed down by SCOTUS in the last week. But, of course, lower courts do not have an academic's luxury of time to make sense of US v. Davis, No. 18-431 (S. Ct. June 24, 2019) (available here; discussed here), US v. Haymond, No. 17-1672 (S. Ct. June 26, 2019) (available here; discussed here) and Rehaif v. US, No. 17-9560 (S. Ct. June 21, 2019) (available here; discussed here).
I suspect some lower courts are already starting to get motions from federal prisoners or defendants in pending cases that are based on these rulings. And the Supreme Court's final order list this morning has a bunch of remands based on these rulings that highlight the coming work for federal Circuit Courts as well. (For those interested in an accounting, I counted sixth Davis GVRs, one Haymond GVR, and four Rehaif GVRs.)
I will not try in this post to sort out the likely litigation echoes of these cases, but I will try to crowd source opinions as to which of these cases will prove most impactful and consequential. Of course, impactful and consequential can be defined lots of different ways — e.g., it might be gauged based on the number of disruptions of prior convictions and sentences, emergence of a new jurisprudence, possible legislative responses, total volume of cites and litigation, etc. Without getting too bogged down in trying to define these terms, I just want to put the question out there for collective engagement among the always informed and thoughtful readers of this blog:
Among the trio of Davis, Haymond and Rehaif, which of these recent rulings by SCOTUS for a federal criminal defendant do you think will prove to be the most impactful and consequential?
Comments
Post a Comment