Your feedback ensures we stay focused on the facts that matter to you most—take our survey.

Shoop v. Twyford

From Ballotpedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Supreme Court of the United States
Shoop v. Twyford
Term: 2021
Important Dates
Argued: April 26, 2022
Decided: June 21, 2022
Outcome
Reversed and remanded
Vote
5-4
Majority
Chief Justice John Roberts • Clarence Thomas • Samuel Alito • Brett Kavanaugh • Amy Coney Barrett
Dissenting
Stephen Breyer • Sonia Sotomayor • Elena Kagan; Neil Gorsuch

Shoop v. Twyford is a case that was decided by the Supreme Court of the United States on June 21, 2022, during the court's October 2021-2022 term. The case was argued before the court on April 26, 2022.

In a 5-4 vote, the court reversed the United States Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit's ruling and remanded the case for further proceedings, holding that a transportation order that allows a prisoner to search for new evidence is not necessary or appropriate in aid of a federal court’s adjudication of a habeas corpus action when the prisoner has not shown that the desired evidence would be admissible in connection with a particular claim for relief. Chief Justice John Roberts wrote the majority opinion of the court. Justice Stephen Breyer filed a dissenting opinion, joined by Justices Sotomayor and Kagan. Justice Neil Gorsuch also filed a dissenting opinion.[1] Click here for more information about the ruling.

HIGHLIGHTS
  • The issue: The case concerned the authority of a federal district court to issue a transport order to the warden of a state-run prison for transportation of a state prisoner involved in a federal habeas corpus proceeding.
  • The questions presented:
    1. "28 U.S.C. §2241(c) allows federal courts to issue a writ of habeas corpus ordering the transportation of a state prisoner only when necessary to bring the inmate into court to testify or for trial. It forbids courts from using the writ of habeas corpus to order a state prisoner's transportation for any other reason. May federal courts evade this prohibition by using the All Writs Act to order the transportation of state prisoners for reasons not enumerated in §2241(c)?"
    2. "Before a court grants an order allowing a habeas petitioner to develop new evidence, must it determine whether the evidence could aid the petitioner in proving his entitlement to habeas relief, and whether the evidence may permissibly be considered by a habeas court?"[2]
  • The outcome: The U.S. Supreme Court reversed the United States Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit's ruling and remanded the case for further proceedings.


    • The case came on a writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit. To review the lower court's opinion, click here.[3]

    Timeline

    The following timeline details key events in this case:

    Questions presented

    The petitioner presented the following question to the court:[2]

    Questions presented:
    “
    1. 28 U.S.C. §2241(c) allows federal courts to issue a writ of habeas corpus ordering the transportation of a state prisoner only when necessary to bring the inmate into court to testify or for trial. It forbids courts from using the writ of habeas corpus to order a state prisoner's transportation for any other reason. May federal courts evade this prohibition by using the All Writs Act to order the transportation of state prisoners for reasons not enumerated in §2241(c)?
    2. Before a court grants an order allowing a habeas petitioner to develop new evidence, must it determine whether the evidence could aid the petitioner in proving his entitlement to habeas relief, and whether the evidence may permissibly be considered by a habeas court?[4]
    		 ”

    Oral argument

    Audio

    Audio of oral argument:[5]



    Transcript

    Transcript of oral argument:[6]

    Outcome

    In a 5-4 vote, the court reversed the United States Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit's ruling and remanded the case for further proceedings, holding that a transportation order that allows a prisoner to search for new evidence is not necessary or appropriate in aid of a federal court’s adjudication of a habeas corpus action when the prisoner has not shown that the desired evidence would be admissible in connection with a particular claim for relief. Chief Justice John Roberts wrote the majority opinion of the court. Justice Stephen Breyer filed a dissenting opinion, joined by Justices Sotomayor and Kagan. Justice Neil Gorsuch also filed a dissenting opinion.[1]

    Opinion

    In the court's majority opinion, Chief Justice John Roberts wrote:[1]

    “ The All Writs Act authorizes federal courts to “issue all writs necessary or appropriate in aid of their respective jurisdictions and agreeable to the usages and principles of law.” 28 U.S.C. §1651(a). In this case, the District Court ordered the State to transport a prisoner in its custody to a hospital for medical testing. The prisoner argued that the testing could reveal evidence helpful in his effort to obtain habeas corpus relief. The question is whether the District Court’s order is “necessary or appropriate in aid of ” the federal court’s resolution of the prisoner’s habeas case. We hold that it is not, and therefore reverse.[4] ”
    —Justice John Roberts

    Dissenting opinion

    Justice Breyer

    Justice Stephen Breyer filed a dissenting opinion, joined by Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan.

    In his dissent, Justice Breyer wrote:[1]

    “ The Court today reviews a District Court’s pretrial order requiring Ohio “to transport a prisoner in its custody to a hospital for medical testing” in order to develop evidence to support the prisoner’s habeas petition. Ante, at 1. The Court holds that the District Court’s order did not comply with the All Writs Act because the District Court failed to consider whether the evidence sought could be admissible in the habeas proceeding. See ante, at 9–10. I would not reach the merits of that question because I do not believe that the Court of Appeals had jurisdiction to hear the State’s interlocutory appeal. I respectfully dissent.[4] ”
    —Justice Stephen Breyer

    Justice Gorsuch

    Justice Neil Gorsuch filed a dissenting opinion.

    In his dissent, Justice Gorsuch wrote:[1]

    “ The Court granted review to decide whether and under what circumstances a federal district court may order a State to transport a prisoner to a hospital for testing. Later, however, it became clear a potential jurisdictional defect threatened to preclude the Court from reaching that question. The District Court’s transportation ruling was an interlocutory order, not a final judgment. To address its merits, the Court would first have to extend the collateral order doctrine to a new class of cases. See Cohen v. Beneficial Industrial Loan Corp., 337 U. S. 541, 545–547 (1949). In a terse footnote today, the Court does just that.


    Respectfully, I would have dismissed this case as improvidently granted when the jurisdictional complication be-came apparent. We did not take this case to extend Cohen. And this Court has repeatedly “admoni[shed]” other courts to keep “the class of collaterally appealable orders . . . ‘narrow and selective.’ ” Mohawk Industries, Inc. v. Carpenter, 558 U. S. 100, 113 (2009). If anything, this call for caution “has acquired special force in recent years with the enactment of legislation designating rulemaking . . . as the preferred means for determining whether and when prejudgment orders should be immediately appealable.” [4]

    		”
    —Justice Neil Gorsuch

    Text of the opinion

    Read the full opinion here.

    October term 2021-2022

    See also: Supreme Court cases, October term 2021-2022

    The Supreme Court began hearing cases for the term on October 4, 2021. The court's yearly term begins on the first Monday in October and lasts until the first Monday in October the following year. The court generally releases the majority of its decisions in mid-June.[7]

    The court agreed to hear 68 cases during its 2021-2022 term.[8] Four cases were dismissed and one case was removed from the argument calendar.[9]

    The court issued decisions in 66 cases during its 2021-2022 term. Three cases were decided without argument. Between 2007 and 2021, SCOTUS released opinions in 1,128 cases, averaging 75 cases per year.


    See also

    External links

    Footnotes

    1. ↑ 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 U.S. Supreme Court, Shoop v. Twyford, decided June 21, 2022
    2. ↑ 2.0 2.1 U.S. Supreme Court, "Shoop v. Twyford: QUESTION PRESENTED," accessed January 18, 2022
    3. ↑ U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit, Twyford v. Shoop, decided August 26, 2021
    4. ↑ 4.0 4.1 4.2 4.3 Note: This text is quoted verbatim from the original source. Any inconsistencies are attributable to the original source.
    5. ↑ Supreme Court of the United States, "Oral Argument - Audio," argued April 26, 2022
    6. ↑ Supreme Court of the United States, "Oral Argument - Transcript," argued April 26, 2022
    7. ↑ SupremeCourt.gov, "The Supreme Court at Work: The Term and Caseload," accessed February 4, 2021
    8. ↑ Consolidated cases are counted as one case for purposes of this number.
    9. ↑ U.S. Supreme Court, "Order List: 593 U.S.," May 17, 2021
    Retrieved from "https://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php?title=Shoop_v._Twyford&oldid=9117274"