Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/20pdf/20-927_i42k.pdf
Page Number: 13

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

9 

SOTOMAYOR, J., dissenting 

those claims were subject to the general bar on second-or-
successive habeas petitions.  United States v. Bernard, 820 
Fed.  Appx.  309  (2020)  (per  curiam);  see  also  28  U. S. C. 
§2255(h)(1).

As  Bernard  correctly  argued,  the  Fifth  Circuit’s  ruling
cannot be reconciled with this Court’s decision in Panetti v. 
Quarterman, 551 U. S. 930 (2007), which held that the bar 
on  second-or-successive  petitions  does  not  apply  to  claims 
that were not ripe when an inmate filed his first-in-time pe-
tition.  Bernard v. United States, 592 U. S. ___, ___ (2020) 
(SOTOMAYOR,  J.,  dissenting)  (slip  op.,  at  4).  Indeed,  the 
Fifth  Circuit’s  rule  makes  no  sense,  as  it  “perversely  re-
wards the Government for keeping exculpatory information
secret until after an inmate’s first habeas petition has been 
resolved.”  Id., at ___ (slip op., at 5).  Unmoved, this Court 
denied Bernard’s petition for a writ of certiorari and appli-
cation for a stay, leaving this dangerous precedent in place 
and, again, condoning the Government’s tactics. 

Finally, consider Wesley Purkey and Lisa Montgomery,
whose executions this Court allowed even though the dis-
trict courts concluded they were likely to succeed in show-
ing that they had no “ ‘rational understanding’ of why the 
State  want[ed]  to  execute  [them].”    See  Madison  v.  Ala-
bama,  586  U. S.  ___,  ___  (2019)  (slip  op.,  at  17)  (quoting 
Panetti,  551  U.S.,  at  958).    Wesley  Purkey  suffered  from 
Alzheimer’s disease.  Thousands of pages of evidence sug-
gested that he earnestly and steadfastly believed that the 
Government  planned  to  execute  him  in  retaliation  for  his
“protracted  jailhouse  lawyering”  to  expose  prison  abuses.
Electronic Case Filing in No. 1:19–cv–3570 (DDC), Doc. 1-
18,  p. 12;  see  also  Barr  v.  Purkey,  591  U.  S  ___,  ___–___ 
(2020) (SOTOMAYOR, J., dissenting) (slip op., at 4–5).  The 
District Court therefore preliminarily enjoined Purkey’s ex-
ecution.  Skipping over the Court of Appeals, the Govern-
ment  sought  immediate  relief  from  this  Court,  which  va-
cated the injunction without comment.