parent nodes: federal habeas jurisdiction
Felker v Turpin
Facts
Felker convicted of capital murder in state court
Felker seeks federal habeas writ, loses in district court
Felker tries again, but loses as presenting a second or successive habeas petition
Felker seeks to appeal, but AEDPA forecloses appeal of petitions (usually)
Felker files for original writ with the Supreme Court
Issues: (1) Does the Court have Article III to issue the writ?
Analysis
(1)
28 USC § 2244(b)(3)(E) prevents review of a COA order denying leave to file a second or successive habeas petition. Rehnquist argues that the situation is similar to [Ex parte Yerger], where the Court interpreted a statute stripping the Court of appellate jurisdiction over lower habeas petitions to still allow the Court to entertain original writs. Generally, repeals of jurisdiction by implication are disfavored. Because §§ 2241–2244 do not mention the Court's original jurisdiction over writs of habeas corpus, they cannot be read to strip the Court of original jurisdiction.
Although the Court's powers are given by the Constitution, [DuRousseau v US], they may be limited by Congress by the Exceptions Clause of Article III, § 2. Congress has not clearly acted to remove the Court's original jurisdiction over original writs. Therefore, the Court has jurisdiction to hear original writs.
(2) a
The Court's authority to issue the writ is limited here by § 2254, which regulates how the writ may be issued to state prisoners. The 1789 writ did not extend to state prisoners. Rehnquist assumes, however, that the Clause protects "the writ as it exists today, rather than it existed in 1789."
Congress has discretion to determine the scope of the writ. § 2244, which transfers a "gatekeeping" function from district courts to the courts of appeals, fits well within the Court's abuse of the writ doctrine. As a result, AEDPA does not violate the Suspension Clause.
(3)
The Supreme Court rules require "extraordinary circumstances" to grant an original writ. Felker has shown no such extraordinary circumstances. Felker's petition for the writ must therefore be denied.
Stevens concurring argues that AEDPA does not violate Article III, § 2, because the Court maintains at least three means to review the denial of a petition to file a second or successive habeas petition: (1) through the All Writs Act, (2) through an interloctory order, or (3) to consider earlier courts' actions in the Court's exercise of its original habeas jurisdiction.
Souter concurring argues, like Stevens, that AEDPA does not preclude Supreme Court appellate review of lower courts through the All Writs Act, interlocutory appeals, or review of lower courts through the original writ proceedings. Souter notes that, although the procedure is known as an "original petition" for habeas corpus, the statute exercises the Court's appellate jurisdiction. Compare [Ex parte Bollman].
Souter argues, however, that there would be an Article III Exceptions Clause problem if the Court's ability to review habeas gatekeeping petitions through the All Writs Act or original petitions was removed by Congress. Such a problem, for example, would arise if there existed a circuit split on the proper standard for gatekeeping provisions under § 2244.
See judicial power; federal habeas jurisdiction