Pueschel v. Connecticut

Background

A Connecticut driver had his license suspended under a state law that allowed suspensions after accidents when drivers were uninsured and could not post security. He was later arrested for driving without a license. The driver argued during his criminal trial that the Supreme Court’s decision in Bell v. Burson, which struck down a similar Georgia law, should protect him. Connecticut courts rejected that defense because his suspension and arrest happened before the Bell decision.

Reasoning

The key question was whether the protection announced in Bell applies to suspensions that happened before Bell was decided. The Supreme Court denied the petition asking it to review the Connecticut decision, so it did not rule on that question. In a written dissent, one Justice said the denial was wrong because the Connecticut statute was essentially the same as the one invalidated in Bell and because the Court had already vacated and sent back other earlier cases for reconsideration in light of Bell.

Real world impact

Because the Court refused to hear the case, the driver’s suspension and the related criminal matters remain in effect for now. The denial leaves unresolved whether people whose suspensions occurred before Bell can rely on the Bell decision. The state court also did not decide a separate procedural argument that the driver might have had other avenues to challenge the suspension.

Dissents or concurrances

A dissenting Justice, joined by another Justice, explained that the denial was incorrect and pointed to other instances where the Court vacated earlier decisions to allow the lower courts to reconsider them in light of Bell.