Supreme Court Roundup: Criminal Justice Reform Edition

Today on Legalese we begin with a Supreme Court Roundup, where we will be going over all the major decision from the Court that they have been putting out since late May and will continue to put out until, at least, their final scheduled sate for this session, July 2nd.
Today we look at two recent opinions regarding issues of criminal justice reform. These Include

Shinn v. Martinez Ramirez, 596 U.S. ___ (2022) - https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/596/20-1009/
and
Egbert v. Boule, 596 U.S. ___ (2022) - https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/21-147_g31h.pdf

Shinn was a 6th amendment case to define the role of Federal Habeas Relief in an appeal of a State criminal law conviction. Despite the fact two men on death row in Arizona and are seeking appeal on the merits based on new exculpatory evidence of incompetent representation in the state trial and post conviction as well as exculpatory evidence of actual innocence, the court ruled that for procedural reasons there is no valid cause of action for the kind of federal appellate review being sought.

Egbert v Boule dealt with a man seeking relief for an alleged violation of his 1st and 4th amendment rights by a U.S. Border Patrol Agent under the precedent set in Bivens v Six Unknown Federal Narcotics Agents (1971). In Bivens claims, private individuals may sue FBI agents for violating their Fourth, Fifth, and/or Eighth Amendment rights.
This case was also denied on procedural grounds that Boule's remedy sought under the Federal Tort Claims Act was in a new and distinct context than the precedent set in Bivens, a case whose propriety has been controversial for many years and has had 11 cases seeking relief under the Bivens claim were denied review and only two have been accepted, but in both cases the appellant lost on the merits.

I do my best to give you a recap with all the necessary information to understand case's basis in fact and law in a way that will be helpful for people whether these areas of federal law are entirely foreign to you, if you are having trouble with two cases that are very complex and hard to truly sort out without a background in the study of relevant jurisprudence. You will understand the decision, how it was reached and what the implications of these cases may likely be as precedent in the future.

Ziglar v. Abbasi, 582 U. S. ___ (2017) - https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/582/15-1358/
Hernández v. Mesa, 589 U. S. ___ (2020) - https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/589/17-1678/

Follow & Support
Rumble.com/legalese
locals.com/legalese
categoricalimperatives.substack.com
odysee.com/@Legalese
anchor.fm/categoricalimperatives
youtube.com/user/ReverendBob23
PayPal.Me - https://www.paypal.com/paypalme/categoricalimperativ
Venmo - http://www.venmo.com/LockeanLiberal

Show Suggestions, Ideas, Questions or Topic Request - Legalese@gmx.us

Legalese is a podcast that discusses current events in law, politics & culture