SCOTUS to consider 2 important cases this week during Friday’s conference.
The Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) will hold a weekly conference this Friday, during which two cases will be considered which we will have our eyes on.
The losing party in a federal appeal can petition the SCOTUS to consider their case. An application for consideration is called a Writ of Certiorari. Each year, the SCOTUS receives thousands (approximately 8000) Writs of Certiorari and decides to hear only approximately 1% (one percent) of the cases it considers. This consideration process takes place at ‘conferences’ where the Justices get together and decide which cases to hear.
If they do not select a case, (deny certiorari) the ruling of the appellate circuit stands. If they select a case (grant certiorari) the SCOTUS will hear the case and the result could mean a different outcome. More important than the result for the parties in the case, is the fact that a SCOTUS decision becomes binding precedent for all federal circuits.
We are closely watching two cases that are being considered in conference this Friday, November 30; Boyd v. Washington and Prison Legal News v. Jones.
In Boyd the Court would consider: Whether the requirement of frequent, in-person reporting renders an offender-registration law punitive, such that applying the law retroactively violates the ex post facto clause. This case is important to us because it addresses the ex post facto argument in the context of “next generation” sex offender laws. It is also important for us to watch because it asks the question whether frequent, in-person, registration (in the case of Boyd, weekly, in-person, trips to the registration office) is punishment. A decision in this case will have a impact on our in-person challenge.
In Prison Legal News, the Court would consider: Whether the Florida Department of Corrections’ blanket ban of Prison Legal News violates a petitioner’s First Amendment right to free speech and a free press. The Florida Department of Corrections has banned Prison Legal News, an award-winning monthly publication featuring content directed to the specialized interests of inmates, from all Florida prison. No other state or federal prison system has banned PLN on the basis of unsubstantiated “safety concerns”. This case is important to us for several reasons. First, many of our loved ones (or ourselves) are unnecessarily being denied access to an important publication. Second, our State seems to like to pass laws based on unsubstantiated “safety concerns” and the ability to violate constitutional rights based on unsubstantiated “concerns” directly impacts our cause. And finally, Prison Legal News has been a close ally of the Florida Action Committee. PLN’s parent company, Human Rights Defense Center, Inc., was one of the ONLY organizations to point out the discrimination contained in Amendment 4.
Discover more from Florida Action Committee
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
I don’t know if anybody here feels the same, but this is an exciting period. Better than 10 years ago where nothing was happening and it felt like stacks of laws were piling up on us. At least there is a glimmer of hope here since courts now have been slowing waking up to all of this BS.
Agreed!!!
Yes indeed and here is another important case won in North Carolina. The ruling was made by another conservative judge. Seems like conservative judges are making the shift towards us somehow. Snyder case, Colorado case, this case in NC. it’s crazy. lol
https://narsol.org/2018/11/narsols-attorney-wins-important-procedural-due-process-case/
It’s too bad that we have to rely on the attitude and character of a specific judge and not the law and Constitution. When two judges can refer to the same Constitution and same law and come to two different conclusions, that is disconcerting.
I agree Captain. Well said.
I have read the Boyd petition. It uses a very narrow argument that in-person reporting is punishment. I don’t think that it is Supreme Court worthy of consideration by itself. However, the Court often bundles similar cases together in order to address the big picture all at once. Let’s pray that they do that now and actually address the issues of punishment and ex post facto violation in a truly honest way, without all of the political fear-mongering.
Concerning the Prison Legal News case, I read their publication many times when I was incarcerated. They were always careful not to include anything that would violate prison rules or incite a riot, which is often the claim that prisons make to ban literature. It is just plan scary how freedom of speech is being eroded in this country the past few years.
I will have a commentary in a few weeks on the loss of freedom of speech in my blog ‘geezerpolitics.com’
” the Court often bundles similar cases together in order to address the big picture all at once. ”
That was my first initial thought when I kept seeing all these cases for SCOTUS consideration – or the potential to head towards SCOTUS. What a mess this has turned out to be , lets bundle them and address the big picture. Hopefully in some way, that would be the case.
I’m still waiting for SCOTUS to rule that the registry is punishment. Maybe it’ll be Boyd, maybe Millard. Seems inevitable to me in any case – there are too many conflicting opinions between the circuits (normally a prerequisite for granting certiorari). The idiotic reasoning that it’s not punitive because it wasn’t intended to be is getting harder to maintain; it’s like saying the Patriots didn’t lose the Super Bowl because they didn’t mean to.