Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/20pdf/20-927_i42k.pdf
Page Number: 3.0

Cite as:  592 U. S. ____ (2021) 

3 

BREYER, J., dissenting 

where the defendant failed to raise that  claim in  his first 
habeas  proceeding  only  because  his  first  habeas  counsel 
was  also  constitutionally inadequate?  See  Purkey,  supra, 
at ___ (BREYER, J., dissenting from grant of vacatur) (slip 
op., at 3).  Does the Federal Government have to follow state 
requirements  for  how much  advance  notice  an  inmate re-
ceives for her execution?  See Rosen  v.  Montgomery, ante, 
p. ___.  These  are  but  a  few  of  the  many  death-penalty-
related  questions  (some  technical,  some  not)  that  courts 
must consider, even though the result of this consideration 
is  often  delay—perhaps  for  many  years.  See  Glossip  v. 
Gross, 576 U. S. 863, 926–929 (2015) (BREYER, J., dissent-
ing). 

None  of  these  legal  questions  is  frivolous.  What  are 
courts to do when faced with legal questions of this kind? 
Are they simply to ignore them?  Or are they, as in this case, 
to “hurry up, hurry up”?  That is no solution.  Higgs’ case 
illustrates this dilemma.  The District Court ruled against 
the  Government  and  the  Government  appealed.    The 
Fourth  Circuit  denied  the  Government’s  request  to  dis-
pense with oral argument “in light of the novel legal issues 
presented” and set oral argument for January 27.  App. to 
Pet. for  Cert.  29a.  The Circuit then stayed  the  execution 
pending further order.  Order in No. 20–18 (Jan. 13, 2021). 
The Government now seeks certiorari before judgment, an 
extraordinary  remedy  that  is  to  be  granted  only  upon  a 
showing  that  “the  case  is  of  such  imperative  public  im-
portance as to justify deviation from normal appellate prac-
tice.”  This Court’s Rule 11.  Given the finality and severity 
of a death sentence, it is particularly important that judges 
consider  and  resolve  challenges  to  an  inmate’s  conviction 
and sentence.  How just is a legal system that would execute 
an individual without consideration of a novel or significant 
legal question that he has raised? 

Yet, to consider these questions, some of which (such as 
mental competency) may not arise until a few weeks before