Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/21pdf/21-511_o75p.pdf
Page Number: 7

4 

SHOOP v. TWYFORD 

Opinion of the Court 

whether  it  would  be  able  to  consider  the  evidence  that 
Twyford hoped to develop.

The District Court stayed the transportation order pend-
ing appeal, and the Court of Appeals affirmed, 11 F. 4th 518
(CA6 2021).  That court first concluded that transportation
orders to gather evidence are “agreeable to the usages and 
principles  of  law.”  §1651(a). 
It  then  determined  that 
Twyford’s transportation to gather evidence was “necessary
or appropriate” under the Act because the desired evidence
“plausibly  relate[d]”  to  his  claims  for  relief.    11  F.  4th,  at  
526–527.  Like the District Court, the Court of Appeals con-
cluded that it was not required to “consider the admissibil-
ity of any resulting evidence” before ordering the State to 
transport Twyford to gather it.  Id., at 527. 

Judge Batchelder dissented, contending that such an or-
der is “necessary or appropriate in aid of ” a court’s jurisdic-
tion only if “(1) the petitioner has identified specific claims
for relief that the evidence being sought would support or 
further;  and  (2)  the  district  court  has  determined  that  if 
that evidence is as the petitioner proposed or anticipated, 
then it could entitle the petitioner to habeas relief.”  Id., at 
529.  The majority’s approach, she argued, allowed Twyford 
to  “proceed  in  reverse  order  by  collecting  evidence  before 
justifying it.”  Ibid. 

We granted certiorari.  595 U. S. ___ (2022). 

II 
The State argues that the lower courts erred for two in-
dependent reasons.  First, the State contends that the All 
Writs Act does not authorize the issuance of transportation
orders for medical testing at all.  Second, the State argues
that the transportation order was not “necessary or appro-
priate  in  aid  of”  the  District  Court’s  jurisdiction  because 
Twyford failed to show that the evidence he hoped to find 
would  be  useful  to  his  habeas  case.  We  agree  with  the
State’s  second  argument  and  thus  need  not  address  the