Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/09pdf/09-166.pdf
Page Number: 2.0

2 

UNITED STATES v. SEALE 

Statement of STEVENS, J. 

tionality  of  death  penalty  laws  nationwide,  Furman  v. 
Georgia,  408  U. S.  238  (per  curiam).  Following  Furman, 
Congress  repealed  the  death  penalty  clause  of  §1201,  see 
Act  for  the  Protection  of  Foreign  Officials  and  Official 
Guests of the United States, Pub. L. 92–539, §201, 86 Stat.
1072,  which  had  the  effect  of  changing  the  applicable 
statute of limitations from §3281 to §3282.

In this case, the District Court held that the 1972 repeal
did not retroactively change the character of a violation of 
§1201  as  a  capital  offense  within  the  meaning  of  §3281—
and  therefore  that  the  prosecution  of  Seale  could  go  for-
ward—but  a panel of the Court of Appeals reversed.  542 
F. 3d  1033  (CA5  2008).   In  response  to  the  Government’s
petition  for  rehearing  en  banc,  the  full  court  vacated  the 
panel  decision  and,  by  an  equally  divided  9-to-9  vote,
affirmed  the  District  Court’s  ruling  on  the  limitations 
defense.  570  F. 3d  650  (CA5  2009)  (per  curiam);  see  also 
id.,  at  651  (DeMoss,  J.,  dissenting)  (noting  the  affir-
mance’s  “nominal”  nature  in  light  of  the  deadlock).    Fol-
lowing  the  procedure  authorized  by  Congress  in  28 
U. S. C. §1254(2) and by this Court’s Rule 19, a majority of 
the  members  of  the  en  banc  court  voted  to  certify  this
question of law to us for decision. 

The  question  is  narrow,  debatable,  and  important.    I 
recognize that the question reaches us in an interlocutory 
posture,  as  Seale  appealed  his  conviction  on  numerous 
grounds,  and  that  “[i]t  is  primarily  the  task  of  a  Court  of 
Appeals to reconcile its internal difficulties,” Wisniewski v. 
United States, 353 U. S. 901, 902 (1957) (per curiam).  Yet 
I  see  no  benefit  and  significant  cost  to  postponing  the 
question’s  resolution.  A  prompt  answer  from  this  Court
will  expedite  the  termination  of  this  litigation  and  deter-
mine  whether  other  similar  cases  may  be  prosecuted.    In 
these  unusual  circumstances,  certification  can  serve  the 
interests not only of legal clarity but also of prosecutorial 
economy and “the proper administration and expedition of