The New York Times has an article that outline the facts surrounding the Court’s recent stay reversal. They slide in this blurb:

Even without a written opinion, the Supreme Court’s action Tuesday night clarified a situation that had become increasingly confusing as state courts and the lower federal courts, without further guidance from the justices, wrestled with claims from a growing number of death-row inmates that their imminent executions should be put on hold.

I’m not so sure that this stay ‘clarified’ the situation at all. Sure, the Court has now granted stay in all three of the capital cases that have come before it since it agreed to hear Baze: Emmitt, Norris, and Barry. Interestingly enough, the Court’s order on Monday in Barry v. Mississippi had a short quip about the legitimacy of the lower court’s ruling. Ordinarily, the Court doesn’t specifically mention the reason that it is denying or granting stays. The fact that the Court offered insight into it’s decision is a sign that the winning faction of the Court, presumably the ‘liberals,’ means that those Justices won narrowly and want to make their opinion public. Regardless, the fact that the Court reversed itself in just 36-hours is indicative of the fact that something serious is going on behind the scenes.

Justice Scalia has made it clear that he doesn’t believe lower courts should be granting stays on executions solely on account of the Court’s decision to accept review in Baze. Justice Alito now firmly places himself in the same camp. Based on the Court’s earlier decision to deny stay, at least 3 Justices sided with those two a few days ago. Since Justices don’t have to disclose their vote – be it affirmative or negative – it is likely that one Justice changed his (or her?) vote.

The most obvious guess is Justice Kennedy. He sided with the Court’s liberal wing in Capital Cases in the last term so he could have been the mystery vote. On the other hand, he may have joined the ‘liberal’ faction initially which would mean that a traditionally ‘liberal’ Justice had sided with the ‘conservatives’ at first. If that were the case, my guess is that Justice Stevens sided with the ‘conservatives’ at first. I can’t point to any hard evidence, I just get the vibe that if any ‘liberal’ Justice was going to be a stickler for traditional procedure, he would be the one.


Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Categories

Random Posts

  • Early OT09 Stats: I've finally finished the first edition of my OT09 statistics. First, the links: Term Index and Term Opinion Breakdown. Honestly, the nam...
  • Another Addition to the Two-in-a-Month Club: Former Solicitor General Gregory Garre is scheduled to argue twice during the December sitting, a relatively uncommon feat for private pract...
  • Updated Term Charts: Starting this week, I'll be posting my updated charts on SCOTUSblog. You can find the first SB version of my charts here. More spec...
  • Belated Decade Advocate Scorecard: For one reason or another, it looks like I forgot to post my updated advocate scorecard for the decade at the end of the last term. Origin...
  • Who is Roy W. McLeese?: This morning, as I was perusing next month's hearing list, I noticed a name I wasn't familiar with: Roy W. McLeese. It isn't unusual to see ...