Supreme Court Takes 3 Cases on 6-Person Juries, Immigration Detention and Death-Row Relief
Updated
Updated · SCOTUSblog · Jun 15
Supreme Court Takes 3 Cases on 6-Person Juries, Immigration Detention and Death-Row Relief
3 articles · Updated · SCOTUSblog · Jun 15
Summary
Three newly granted cases will test whether Florida’s six-person criminal juries are constitutional, when prolonged immigration detention requires a bond hearing, and whether a death-row inmate can file a second federal habeas petition.
In the detention case, the justices will review a 2nd Circuit ruling requiring bond hearings once custody becomes “unreasonably prolonged” and forcing the government to justify continued detention by clear and convincing evidence.
That appeal stems from Keisy G.M., a green-card holder held 21 months after a 2020 assault conviction; the court also asked whether the case is moot because he was released in 2022.
The jury case asks the court to revisit its 1970 Williams v. Florida precedent after a defendant convicted by a six-person jury argued the Sixth Amendment requires 12 jurors.
The order list also featured two Alito dissents from denied appeals, including an Alabama death-penalty case and an Indiana student-speech dispute, while the court rejected petitions from Carter Page and 98-year-old Judge Pauline Newman.
With detention at record highs, will the Supreme Court rule that due process has limits for legal residents?
Will this decision on bond hearings permanently alter the rights of millions of noncitizens in America?
20,000 Lawsuits, One Decision: Supreme Court Reviews Noncitizen Bond Hearing Rights in Genalo Case
Overview
The U.S. Supreme Court has agreed to hear the landmark Genalo case, which will decide if noncitizens, including green card holders, can be held in prolonged detention without a bond hearing. Petitioners, represented by the ACLU, want to uphold lower court rulings that grant access to bond hearings, while the government seeks a clear legal answer on detention without bail. The case centers on statutes interpreted to forbid bail for certain noncitizens, raising serious constitutional questions. The Court’s decision is expected to have major consequences for immigration law and the rights of noncitizens in the United States.