Current Relists Overview

This week, a variety of petitions have been relisted for consideration, including 126 cases scheduled for the conference. Notably, the Court granted review for a case regarding double jeopardy related to firearm sentencing.

However, one petition concerning First Amendment challenges to university bias-response teams was denied review, prompting dissent from Justice Clarence Thomas, who emphasized existing circuit splits that warrant Supreme Court intervention.

Challenges on Restitution and Ex Post Facto Clause

Two notable relists from this week echo last week’s discussions surrounding jury trials and restitution. The cases question whether restitution mandated by court orders is considered punishment under the Constitution’s ex post facto clause.

Neilly v. Michigan and Ellingburg v. United States

In Neilly’s case, after being sentenced for a juvenile crime, his new restitution order was based on legislation enacted post-sentencing. Similarly, Ellingburg has faced extended restitution orders based on newer laws, even though the original terms had expired.

Both cases contend that the nature of restitution—whether civil or punitive—remains unsettled in the courts, with implications for legal proceedings nationwide. Given the concessions from Michigan and the U.S. government regarding the nature of restitution, these cases are poised for significant review.

Impact of Affidavit of Merit Laws

In another critical relist, Berk v. Choy addresses whether affidavits of merit required by state law should be applicable in federal court based on “diversity of citizenship” jurisdiction. A conflicting precedent currently exists within the federal courts of appeal, thus establishing the relevance of this case for future litigants.

Capital Case: Shockley v. Vandergriff

The capital case of Shockley v. Vandergriff presents a complex narrative involving a fatal vehicle accident, murder allegations, and jury bias concerns. After Shockley’s conviction, significant questions arose regarding the juror’s potential bias linked to a fictional work published by the jury foreman.

Shockley argues that his Sixth Amendment right to effective counsel was violated when his attorneys failed to probe potential biases during jury selection. His appeal has faced obstacles in both state and federal courts, but he remains hopeful that the Supreme Court will permit his case to proceed.

Summary of New and Returning Relists

Among the relisted cases, key issues include:

• Neilly v. Michigan (24-395): Examines if restitution is punishment under the ex post facto clause.
• Berk v. Choy (24-440): Considers the applicability of state law requirements for expert affidavits in federal court.
• Ellingburg v. United States (24-482): Investigates if criminal restitution counts as penal under the ex post facto clause.
• Shockley v. Vandergriff (24-517): Questions if the 8th Circuit erred in not allowing Shockley’s appeal about ineffective assistance of counsel.