On Point: 44. SCOTUS

Samia v. United States, USSC No. 22-196, 143 S. Ct. 2004, June 23, 2023, affirming U.S. v. Hunter, et al., Nos. 18-3074-cr, 18-3489-cr, 19-790-cr (2nd Cir. Apr. 20, 2022) (not reported); Scotusblog page (with links to briefs and commentary)

A majority of the Supreme Court affirms the use of a confession of one non-testifying co-defendant against another defendant, and its rationale shows, in the words of the dissenters, that the majority thinks the rule in Bruton v. United States, 391 U.S. 123 (1968), “should go.” (Kagan dissent at 10; Jackson dissent at 1).

Haaland et al. v. Brackeen et al., USSC No. 21-376, 143 S.Ct. 1609 (June 15, 2023), affirming in part, reversing in part, and vacating and remanding 994 F.3d 249 (5th Cir. 2021); Scotusblog page (including links to briefs and commentary)

This is a guest post by Attorney Matthew Giesfeldt of the Madison Appellate office, who is also the SPD’s Family Defense Practice Coordinator.

The Indian Child Welfare Act, or “ICWA,” is a federal law enacted in response to concern that nontribal public and private agencies were removing Native American children from their homes to non-tribal placements at “an alarmingly high percentage[.]” Slip op. at 2. Wisconsin codified ICWA as state law in 2009. Wis. Stat. § 48.028. Under both the federal and state statutes, agencies that place children out of the home (such as local child-protection agencies) must adhere to stricter requirements to remove a tribal child than they must follow to remove a non-tribal child. For example, tribes may intervene in child placement cases, and agencies seeking to remove tribal children from tribal homes must engage in “active efforts” to help the parents and prevent the removal. Wis. Stat. § 48.028(4)(e)2.

In these consolidated cases, the biological parents and each foster parent couple seeking to adopt agreed that a tribal child should be adopted by nontribal parents, but a tribe intervened in opposition to the others’ plans. The parents filed a federal suit challenging ICWA, which three states joined. In one of the cases, the adoption was denied based upon the tribe’s intervening objection, though in the other two cases the tribe ultimately abandoned its objection, allowing the adoption to go through. Slip op. at 6-8.

The Court addressed four separate constitutional challenges to ICWA:

Jones v. Hendrix, 143 S.Ct. 1857, 599 U.S. __ (June 22, 2023); Scotusblog page (containing links to briefs and commentary)

The Court, in a 6-3 opinion authored by Justice Thomas, holds that the savings clause in 28 U.S.C.  2255(e) bars a prisoner from using an intervening change in the interpretation of a federal criminal statute to circumvent AEDPA’s restrictions on successive Section 2255 motions by filing a habeas petition under Section 2241.

Counterman v. Colorado, USSC No. 22-183, 6/27/2023; Scotusblog page (with links to briefs and commentary)

In a case with possible implications for Wisconsin law, SCOTUS holds that in a criminal prosecution involving “true threats,” the State must prove the person “consciously disregarded a substantial risk that his communications would be viewed as threatening violence.”

Pugin v. Garland, USSC Nos. 22-23 & 22-331, 2023 WL 4110232 (June 22, 2023), affirming Pugin v. Garland, 19 F.4th 437 (4th Cir. 2021) and reversing Garland v. Cordero-Garcia, 44 F.4th 1181 (9th Cir. 2022); Scotusblog page (including links to briefs and commentary

Noncitizens convicted of an “aggravated felony” may be deported from the United States. The definition of “aggravated felony” includes federal or state offenses “relating to obstruction of justice.” 8 U. S. C. §1101(a)(43)(S). The question in these consolidate cases is whether an offense “relat[es] to obstruction of justice” even if the offense does not require that an investigation or proceeding be pending at the time of the defendant’s acts. In a 6 to 3 ruling, the Supreme Court holds that an investigation or proceeding need not be pending for the offense to be an aggravated felony.

Smith v. United States, USSC No. 21-1576, 2023 WL 4002949 (June 15, 2023), affirming United States v. Smith, 22 F. 4th 1236 (11th Cir. 2022); Scotusblog page (including links to briefs and commentary).

A unanimous Supreme Court holds that the Constitution does not bar retrial of a defendant whose conviction is reversed because the prosecution occurred in the wrong venue and before a jury drawn from the wrong location.

Lora v. United States, USSC No. 22-49, 2023 WL 4034313 (June 16, 2023), vacating and remanding United States v. Lora, unreported summary order (2d Cir. Feb. 15, 2022); Scotusblog page (including links to briefs and commentary)

Resolving a circuit split, a unanimous Supreme Court engages in a plain-language reading of a statute requiring a judge to impose a consecutive sentence for certain crimes and holds the statute does indeed mean what it says, and no more.

Dubin v. United States, USSC No. 22-10, 2023 WL 3872518 (June 8, 2023), vacating and remanding United States v. Dubin, 27 F.4th 1021 (5th Cir. 2022); Scotusblog page (including links to briefs and commentary)

Faced with competing interpretations of a penalty enhancement statute, the Supreme Court adopts the narrower interpretation based on both a careful reading of the language and context of the statute and its “tradition[] of “exercis[ing] restraint in assessing the reach of a federal criminal statute.” (Slip op. 17).

Counterman v. Colorado, USSC No. 22-138; cert. granted 1/13/23; reversed 6/27/23 Scotusblog page (containing links to briefs and commentary)

Question presented:

Whether, to establish that a statement is a “true threat” unprotected by the First Amendment, the government must show that the speaker subjectively knew or intended the threatening nature of the statement, or whether it is enough to show that an objective “reasonable person” would regard the statement as a threat of violence.

Adam Samia v. United States, USSC No 22-196  ; cert. granted 12/13/22; Scotusblog page (containing links to briefs and commentary)

Question presented:

Whether admitting a codefendant’s redacted out-of-court confession that immediately inculpates a defendant based on the surrounding context violates the defendant’s rights under the Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment.