Document: 518 U.S. 651116 S.Ct. 2333135 L.Ed.2d 827 FELKERv.TURPIN, WARDENCertiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for Eleventh Circuit. No. 95-8836 Supreme Argued June 3, 1996 Decided 28, Syllabus After he was convicted murder and other crimes sentenced death by a Georgia state court, petitioner denied relief on direct appeal, in two rounds collateral proceedings, first round federal habeas corpus proceedings. While awaiting execution, President signed into law Antiterrorism Effective Death Penalty Act (Act), Title I which, as here pertinent, requires dismissal claim presented prisoner's second or successive application if also prior application, Section(s) 106(b)(1); compels that not unless certain conditions apply, 106(b)(2); creates "gatekeeping" mechanism, whereby prospective applicant files court appeals motion leave file district three-judge panel determines whether makes prima facie showing it satisfies 106(b)'s requirements, 106(b)(3); declares panel's grant denial authorization ``shall be appealable shall subject petition . writ certiorari,'' 106(b)(3)(E). Petitioner filed petition, which Circuit grounds, inter alia, claims raised therein had been his did meet 106(b)(2)'s conditions. then this pleading styled "Petition Writ Habeas Corpus [and] Appellate Certiorari Review ." The granted certiorari, ordering briefing extent I's provisions apply Court, suspended case, I, especially 106(b)(3)(E), unconstitutionally restricts Court's jurisdiction. Held: 1. does preclude from entertaining an relief, although affect standards governing granting such relief. Pp. 5-10. (a) deprive jurisdiction entertain petitions original matters pursuant 28 U. S. C. 2241 2254. No provision mentions authority petitions; contrast, 103 amends Federal Rules Procedure bar consideration courts appeals. Although 106(b)(3)(E) precludes reviewing, appeal latter courts' decisions exercising function petitions, no mention Thus, declines find repeal implication. See Ex parte Yerger, 8 Wall. 85, 105. This conclusion obviates any under Constitution's Exceptions Clause, Art. III, 2, provides, that, "[i]n all Cases have appellate Jurisdiction, both Law Fact, with Congress make." Since there can plausible argument deprives violation Clause. 6-9. (b) changes imposing new requirements 2254(a), limits prisoners. Section 106(b)(3)'s system because is limited applications "filed court." There limitation, however, restrictions imposed 106(b)(1) (2), those inform bound restrictions. 9-10. 2. violate Suspension 9, cl. provides "[t]he Privilege suspended." constitute modified res judicata rule, restraint what called practice "abuse writ." doctrine abuse refers complex evolving body equitable principles informed controlled historical usage, statutory developments, judicial decisions. McCleskey v. Zant, 499 467, 489. are well within compass evolutionary process do amount "suspension" writ. 10-12. 3. denied. Petitioner's satisfy 106(b)(2) let alone Rule 20.4(a), show "exceptional circumstances" justifying issuance says rarely granted. materially differ numerous made petitioners has occasion review stay applications. P. 12. dismissed want jurisdiction; Rehnquist, J., delivered opinion unanimous Court. Stevens, concurring opinion, Souter Breyer, JJ., joined. Souter, Stevens NOTICE: formal revision before publication preliminary print Reports. Readers requested notify Reporter Decisions, States, Washington, D.C. 20543, typographical errors, order corrections may goes press. Chief Justice Rehnquist 1 (Act) works substantial chapter 153 Code, authorizes corpus. Pub. L. 104-132, 110 Stat. 1217. We hold conclude availability Clause Article Constitution, operative 9. I. 2 On night 1976, approached Jane W. car she got out hers. Claiming lost looking party nearby, used series deceptions induce accompany him trailer home town. forcibly subdued her, raped sodomized her. pleaded her go, but said could would police. She escaped later, when fell asleep. notified police, eventually aggravated sodomy 12 years' imprisonment. 3 paroled four years later. November 23, 1981, met Joy Ludlam, cocktail waitress, at lounge where worked. interested changing jobs, involving offering job "The Leather Shoppe," business owned, visit next day. last time seen alive evening Her dead discovered weeks later creek. Forensic analysis established beaten, raped, sodomized, strangled being left Investigators hair resembling petitioner's Joy's clothes, bedroom, clothing fibers like coat hatchback car. One neighbors reported seeing house day disappeared. 4 A jury murder, rape, sodomy, false charge. affirmed conviction sentence, Felker State, 252 Ga. 351, 314 E. 2d 621, we 469 873 (1984). trial declined issue certificate probable cause denial, again certiorari. 502 1064 (1992). 5 District Middle Georgia, alleging (1) State's evidence insufficient convict him; (2) State withheld exculpatory evidence, Brady Maryland, 373 83 (1963); (3) counsel rendered ineffective assistance sentencing; (4) improperly hypnosis refresh witness' memory; (5) violated double jeopardy estoppel using crime against Ludlam. petition. affirmed, 52 F. 3d 907, extended rehearing, 62 342 (1995), 516 ___ (1996). 6 scheduled execution period May 2-9, 1996. April 29, 1996, 1, certiorari 7 24, law. contained amendments existing pertinent case concern Subsections (b)(2) specify must dismissed, amending 2244(b) read: "(1) section 2254 dismissed. 9 "(2) unless- 10 "(A) shows relies rule constitutional law, retroactive cases previously unavailable; 11 "(B)(i) factual predicate through exercise due diligence; "(ii) facts underlying claim, proven viewed light whole, sufficient establish clear convincing error, reasonable factfinder found guilty offense." 1220-1221. 13 Subsection 106(b)(3) mechanism court. 106(b)(3)(A). 30 days determine "the of" 106(b). specifies rehearing certiorari." sought raise equating guilt "beyond doubt" "moral certainty" voir dire instructions. Cage Louisiana, 498 39 (1990). He alleged qualified experts, reviewing forensic after conviction, died during police surveillance disappearance thus valid alibi. claimed testimony expert suspect licensed physician, so discredited colorable innocence. 14 motions they were filed, concluding Act, satisfied pre-Act obtaining merits claims. 1303 (CA11 1996). Corpus, Decision Circuit, Stay Execution." ordered constitutes unconstitutional restriction 517 II. 15 consider impose our petitions. A. 16 prevents denying More than century ago, considered statute barring judgment circuit deprived power 85 (1869). same question respect 17 Yerger's holding best understood time. Judiciary 1789 authorized courts, including corpus, prisoners "in custody, colour [were] committed some same." Sept. 1789, ch. 20, 14, 82.1 greatly expanded scope 1867, authorizing writ, addition already conferred law," person restrained liberty constitution, treaty States." Feb. 5, 385.2 Before only instances produce prisoner "necessary brought testify," 82, "committed act done pursuance States," Mar. 1833, 57, 7, 634-635, "subjec[t] citize[n] foreign domiciled therein," held Aug. 1842, 257, 539-540. 18 1867 authorize final decision 386. enactment changed result Barry Mercein, How. (1847), conduct However, 1868, revoked given repealing "so much [Act 1867] 27, 34, 44. 19 In 1868 us hear inferior court's 1789. concluded explained Act's text addressed over Acts 1867. rejected suggestion repealed Wall., Repeals implication favored, said, continued "repugnant" prohibition judgments. Ibid. 20 Turning present reasons similar stated Yerger. appeals.3 106(b) (3)(E) As applied then, decline 28-its descendant, n. supra-by now. 21 one challenges raised. critical language Constitution apart several classes specifically enumerated jurisdiction, supreme Exceptions, Regulations Previous construing clause while powers "are constitution," "they regulated [Judiciary 1789], acts passed subject." Durousseau Cranch 307, (1810); see More, 159, 172-173 (1805). remove its But since B. 22 how affects entitled Our 2254, "a custody court."4 2254(a). Several sections section, therefore well. 23 addresses applies repetitive subsections (2). These without qualification "second 2254." 106(b)(1), Whether these restrictions, certainly III. 24 Next, suspends Constitution. suspended, Rebellion Invasion public Safety require it." known Framers quite different exists today. previously, available confined authority. Supra, 6-7; Dorr, (1844). class actions reviewable more restricted Watkins, Pet. 193 (1830), "detained prison virtue possesses general criminal cases." Id., 202. Reviewing English common American understanding itself own legality," "usurp instrumentality corpus." 207. 25 It until generally "all 6. And interpreted allow collaterally attacked habeas. See, e.g., Waley Johnston, 316 101 (1942); Brown Allen, 344 443 (1953). assume, purposes here, today, rather existed Swain Pressley, 430 372 (1977); id., 385 (Burger, concurring). 26 obtain filing requirement simply transfers screening performed required 9(b). codifies pre-existing further petitioners. long recognized award written Bollman, 75, 94 (1807), likewise judgments about proper "normally Lonchar Thomas, ___, (slip op., 8). 27 467 (1991), decisions." added places process, contrary IV. answered questions now dispose 20.4(a) delineates writs: 29 "A seeking comply 2242, particular paragraph 2242 requiring statement `reasons making held.' If set forth wherein exhausted remedies otherwise comes 2254(b). To justify exceptional circumstances warranting discretionary adequate cannot obtained form writs granted." Neither them relevant 31 32 ordered. 33 whom Breyer join, concurring. 34 join believe response incomplete. add brief comment. 35 correctly concludes, divest issuing does, except category orders entered 1254(1). purport limit interlocutory cases, 1254(2), All Writs 1651. 36 Accordingly, least three rejecting exception violates First, retain gatekeeping Act-and suggested otherwise-such immune review. Second, entering appropriate order, provide opportunity proposed disposition application. Third, earlier parties functional equivalent denies jurisprudence appeals' function. 37 38 opinion. holds today 1217, review, "certiorari" "appeal," Courts Appeals's "gatekeeper" determinations. codified 2244(b)(3)(E). statute's necessarily foreclose see, 1254(2) (certified appeals); 1651(a) (authority aid another jurisdiction); 20.3 (procedure extraordinary writs), nor corpus.5 Because (which foreclosed) (which, even applying traditional criteria, choose deny, ante, 12), difficulty face, unconstitutional. write should turn avenues determination closed, exceeded Congress's open.6 arise adopted divergent interpretations gatekeeper standard. ancestor 2241, subsection states part: "Writs justice thereof, judge their respective jurisdictions." extend [h]e laws treaties 22(a) "An judge, transferred denied, renewal permitted. may, 2253 title originally enacted 1948, specified "[a]n behalf appears State." (1946 ed., Supp. III). reviser's notes, citing Hawk, 321 114 (1944), indicated "[t]his declaratory Court." Reviser's Note following p. 1109 Hawk opinions exhaustion announced Royall, 117 241 (1886), deny applicants Such commonly "original" sense instance nonetheless (rather original) Oaks, "Original" 1962 Ct. Rev. 153. Hart, Power Limit Jurisdiction Courts: An Exercise Dialectic, 66 Harv. 1362, 1364-1365 (1953) (articulating "essential functions" limitation Clause); Ratner, Congressional Over 109 Pa. 157, 160-167 (1960) (same); Gunther, Curtail Jurisdiction: Opinionated Guide Ongoing Debate, Stan. 895, 896-899 (1984) (taking broad view authority, noting ongoing scholarly debate); Caminker, Why Must Inferior Obey Superior Precedents?, 46 781, 828-837 (1994) (noting textual support, lower 8, "inferior Court").

Category: 0