By: WISCONSIN LAW JOURNAL STAFF//January 10, 2012//
U.S. Supreme Court
Criminal
Habeas Corpus — AEDPA
28 U.S.C. 2253(c)(3) is a mandatory but nonjurisdictional rule. A court of appeal’s failure to “indicate” a constitutional issue does not deprive a Court of Appeals of jurisdiction to adjudicate the appeal.
The State’s contrary arguments are unpersuasive. Section 2253(c)(3)’s cross-reference to §2253(c)(1) does not mean §2253(c)(3) can be read as part of §2253(c)(1), as Congress set off the requirements in distinct paragraphs with distinct terms. The word “shall” in §2253(c)(3), meanwhile, underscores the rule’s mandatory nature, but not all mandatory rules are jurisdictional. Nor does §2253(c)(3)’s mere proximity to other jurisdictional provisions turn a rule that speaks in nonjurisdictional terms into a jurisdictional hurdle. Finally, the Court rejects the State’s attempt to analogize a COA to a notice of appeal.
623 F. 3d 222, affirmed.
Local effect: The opinion is consistent with Seventh Circuit precedent. Young v. U.S., 124 F.3d 794, 798-799 (7th Cir. 1997).
Sotomayor, J.; Scalia, J., dissenting.