As much as I hate to bump Matt's awesome post about the Lopez case from the top of the blog, I did have a few minutes and wanted to mention something from this week's SCOTUSblog's relist watch.
A couple of months ago, I mentioned the Martinez v. Pinholster battle going on in the Ninth Circuit. It came to a head in a case called Schad v. Ryan, where a bunch of conservative judges issued an opinion dissenting from the denial of rehearing.
Relist Watch on SCOTUSblog indicates that the cert. petition in Schad (now known as Ryan v. Schad) has been relisted several times. Here's what RW say about it:
So as not to disturb the fundamental rule of nature that as the number of relists approaches four, at least one has to be a habeas case, the Court relisted Ryan v. Schad, 12-1084, yet another state-on-top habeas case out of the Ninth Circuit, and with a long pedigree to boot: It was relisted in the early days of Relist Watch, and then GVR’d a couple years ago in light ofCullen v. Pinholster. In its current form, a panel majority consisting of Judges Schroeder and Reinhardt reconsidered the prior denial of Schad’s latest GVR request, and ordered the case to be sent back to the district court for reconsideration of “new evidence” relevant to his ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claim in light of Martinez v. Ryan. The Ninth denied rehearing en banc, with eight of the court’s more conservative judges dissenting. Can’t imagine why this has caught the Court’s attention.
To note, two weeks ago, Alex wrote about a different cert. petition, in Gallow v. Cooper that raises a similar issue. As Alex indicated in his post, the resolution of the tension between Martinez and Pinholster seems inevitable. Will it be in one of these two cases?