SCOTUSblog has a new relist post up.
There are two habeas cases on the list. One of them is the one that was mentioned in the last relist post, Felkner v. Jackson. Once again, the question is: Whether the Ninth Circuit failed to follow the deferential standard under 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d) when it found that a prosecutor’s proffered race-neutral bases for striking two African-American jurors was insufficient?
The other case is Maples v. Allen. If it looks familiar, that's because it had previously been a relisted case, but then it disappered from the relist list. But now it appears that it has popped up again on relist lists.
The issues in the case are: Whether the Eleventh Circuit properly held that the purported state procedural default rule is “adequate” as a matter of federal law to bar federal habeas review of serious constitutional claims; and (2) whether the Eleventh Circuit properly held that there was no “cause” to excuse any procedural default where petitioner was blameless for the default, the state’s own conduct contributed to the default, and petitioner’s attorneys of record were no longer functioning as his agents at the time of any default.
Here's the thing though. These cases raise the question of what makes something a relisted case. Is it a case that is current being relisted or a case that has at some point been (or will be) relisted? For example, Felkner was not relisted after this last conference. In fact, it's last relist was at the 2/25 conference. If it wasn't relisted after the most recent conference, is it currently a relisted case?
And Maples has an odder history. It was relisted back in September, but then not relisted again until January. As a result, it seemed to have vanished from the list of relists once it stopped getting relisted (at least it wasn't in the SCOTUSblog relists posts until now). It has now been relisted several times this year, but only intermittently. But it was put on the conference list for this last conference.
So I guess what I am saying is that "relist" needs to be more carefully defined. If given its technical meaning, then it will actually cover many, many cases. Any case that does not get resolved after its first appearance at a conference is technically a relisted cases. That's because the case will only get resolved ONCE it gets puts on another list. In other words, because it will need to be put on another list, that technically makes it a relisted case. I hope that's clear because I feel like I am running in logical circles here.
Or am I overthinking it and is a relisted case just one that's been put on several different conference lists and has yet to be decided? But how many are necessary to qualify it? Two? Three? More? My head hurts a little bit.
In any event, I still think that both of these relisted cases will be GVR's in light of Richter and Martin, respectively.*
*Please see the Supreme Court Cases -- Current Term page for more info.
Comments