Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility

Habeas Corpus — AEDPA

By: WISCONSIN LAW JOURNAL STAFF//January 10, 2012//

Habeas Corpus — AEDPA

By: WISCONSIN LAW JOURNAL STAFF//January 10, 2012//

Listen to this article

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).

10-895 Gonzalez v. Thaler

Sotomayor, J.; Scalia, J., dissenting.

Polls

Should Steven Avery be granted a new evidentiary hearing?

View Results

Loading ... Loading ...

Legal News

See All Legal News

WLJ People

Sea all WLJ People

Opinion Digests