Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/boundvolumes/558bv.pdf
Page Number: 389

228 

WELLONS  v.  HALL 

Alito, J., dissenting 

want  them  to  do  (as  the  Court  believes)  is  to  consider  an 
evidentiary hearing. 

The  systematic  degradation  of  our  traditional  require­
ments  for  a  GVR  has  spawned  a  series  of  unusual  disposi­
tions,  including  the  GVR  so  the  Government  can  try  a  less 
extravagant  argument  on  remand,  see  Department  of  Inte­
rior  v.  South  Dakota,  519  U. S.  919,  921  (1996)  (Scalia,  J., 
dissenting),  the  GVR  in  light  of  nothing,  see  Youngblood  v. 
West Virginia, 547 U. S. 867, 872 (2006) (same), and the newly 
minted  Summary Remand  for  More Extensive  Opinion  than 
Petitioner  Requested  (SRMEOPR),  see  Webster  v.  Cooper, 
post, at 1042 (Scalia, J., dissenting).  Today the Court adds 
another  beast  to  our  growing  menagerie:  the  SRIE,  Sum­
mary  Remand  for  Inconsequential  Error—or,  as  the  Court 
would  have  it,  the  SRTAEH,  Summary  Remand  to  Think 
About an Evidentiary Hearing. 

It disrespects the judges of the courts of appeals, who are 
appointed and conﬁrmed as we are, to vacate and send back 
their authorized judgments for inconsequential imperfection 
of  opinion—as  though  we  were  schoolmasters  grading  their 
homework.  An appropriately self-respecting response to to­
day’s summary vacatur would be summary reissuance of the 
same  opinion,  minus  the  discussion  of  Cone.  That  would 
also serve the purpose of minimizing the delay of justice that 
today’s  GVR  achieves  (Wellons  has already  outlived  his  vic­
tim by 20 years; he committed his murder in 1989). 

Justice  Alito,  with  whom  The  Chief  Justice  joins, 

dissenting. 

The  Court’s  disposition  of  this  case  represents  a  misuse 
of  our  authority  to  grant,  vacate,  and  remand  (GVR).  The 
decision  of  the  Court  of  Appeals  plainly  rests  on  two  inde­
pendent grounds: ﬁrst, that petitioner procedurally defaulted 
his claim that the judge, bailiff, and jurors had an inappropri­
ate  relationship  that  impaired  his  right  to  a  fair  trial  and, 
second, that petitioner’s claim failed on the merits.  See 554