On Point blog, page 1 of 40
SCOTUS: Second habeas petition filed while first petition pending on appeal must clear procedural hurdle before claim may be considered on its merits.
Rivers v. Guerrero, USSC No. 23-1345, 6/12/2025; Scotusblog page (with links to briefs and commentary)
A unanimous SCOTUS held that a habeas petitioner’s second filing asserting a new claim for relief, submitted after the district court entered judgment with respect to the first filing but while the first filing was pending on appeal, qualifies as a “second or successive” petition and must be approved by the court of appeals before considered by the district court.
SCOTUS grants cert to determine whether restitution is penal for purposes of the Ex Post Facto Clause
Holsey Ellingburg, Jr. v. United States, USSC No. 24-557, certiorari granted 4/7/25
SCOTUS added to its 2025-26 docket on April 7, when it granted the petitioner’s cert. petition to address the following:
Whether criminal restitution under the Mandatory Victim Restitution Act (MVRA) is penal for purposes of the Ex Post Facto Clause.
SCOTUS grants cert to determine scope of defendant’s right to discuss matters with counsel during recess in trial testimony.
David Asa Villarreal v. Texas, USSC No. 24-557, certiorari granted 4/7/25
SCOTUS added to its 2025-26 docket this week when it granted the petitioner’s cert. petition to address the following:
Whether a trial court abridges the defendant’s Sixth Amendment right to counsel by prohibiting the defendant and his counsel from discussing the defendant’s testimony during an overnight recess.
SCOTUS’s Most Recent Order List
While we don’t usually cover SCOTUS’s order list unless there’s something special going on, the most recent order clocked in at nearly 60 pages and featured a number of interesting dissents that we thought our readers would be intrigued by.
SCOTUS issues per curiam order clarifying that erroneous admission of prejudicial evidence can violate due process
Andrew v. White, USSC No. 23-6573 (per curiam), 1/21/25, vacating Andrew v. White, 62 F.4th 1299 (10th Cir. 2023); Scotusblog page (with links to briefs and commentary)
In a rare defense win (of sorts) on federal habeas in the US Supreme Court, SCOTUS clarifies that its decision in Payne v. Tennessee “clearly established” the rule that when “evidence is introduced that is so unduly prejudicial that it renders the trial fundamentally unfair, the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment provides a mechanism for relief.”
SCOTUS Wrap-up
In addition to the SCOTUS cases to which we devoted individual posts (Smith v. Arizona, Erlinger v. U.S., U.S. v. Rahimi, Garland v. Cargill), below is a summary of criminal or criminal-adjacent cases decided by SCOTUS in the 2023-24 term that we consider of interest to criminal practice in Wisconsin state courts.
SCOTUS addresses half of the Confrontation Clause analysis on substitute expert testimony; holds such testimony is generally hearsay
Smith v. Arizona, USSC No. 22-899, 6/21/2024, vacating and remanding Arizona v. Smith, No. 1CA-CR 21-0451 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2022) (unreported); Scotusblog page (with links to briefs and commentary)
SCOTUS unanimously holds that expert witness testimony restating an absent lab analyst’s factual assertions to support his or her own opinion is hearsay. However, the Court declined to address the second part of the Confrontation Clause test, whether the underlying evidence was testimonial, as the issue was undeveloped in this case.
SCOTUS requires jury to find whether prior offenses occurred on different occasions to enhance sentence under Armed Career Criminal Act
Erlinger v. United States, USSC No. 23-370, June 21, 2024, vacating United States v. Erlinger, 77 F.4th 617 (7th Cir. 2023); Scotusblog page (with links to briefs and commentary)
Whether offenses committed on three “occasions different from one another” for purposes of federal Armed Career Criminal Act must be found by a jury beyond a reasonable doubt.
SCOTUS tempers pro-gun 2nd Amendment precedent; holds States may disarm a citizen who poses “a clear threat of physical violence to another”
United States of America v. Rahimi, USSC No. 22-915, 6/21/2024, reversing United States v. Rahimi, 61 F.4th 443 (5th Cir. 2023); Scotusblog page (with links to briefs and commentary)
In a much-anticipated Second Amendment decision, SCOTUS tries to clarify its turbulent precedent regarding firearm restrictions and offers a limited holding upholding a federal statute disarming persons subject to domestic abuse restraining orders so long as specific statutory elements are met.
SCOTUS: ATF exceeded statutory authority by defining “machinegun” to include bump stocks.
Garland v. Cargill, USSC No. 22-976, June 14, 2024, affirming Cargill v. Garland , 57 F.4th 447 (5th Cir. 2023) (en banc); Scotusblog page (with links to briefs and commentary)
ATF exceeded authority when it defined “machinegun” to include bump stocks.