Corsetti v. Massachusetts

Background

A man convicted of criminal contempt in Massachusetts had his conviction and 90-day jail sentence affirmed by the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court. He asked Justice Brennan, acting alone as a Circuit Justice, to pause (stay) the sentence while he sought the Supreme Court’s review. This was an in-chambers emergency application — a single-Justice decision about whether the full Court should take up the case and whether the jail term should be put on hold during that process.

Reasoning

Justice Brennan applied the four-part standard described in the opinion: the applicant must show a reasonable probability that four Justices will consider the case meritorious and a fair prospect that a majority would reverse, plus likely irreparable harm and, in close cases, a balance of harms. Brennan explained his role was not to decide the case’s merits but to assess whether review and reversal were reasonably likely. He concluded there was not a reasonable probability that the Court would grant review and no fair prospect of reversal; although the applicant showed likely irreparable harm, the balance of equities did not justify a stay.

Real world impact

Because the emergency stay was denied, the affirmed conviction and 90-day sentence remain in effect while any petition for full Court review proceeds. The decision does not resolve the underlying legal questions; it only denies temporary relief from the sentence because four Justices were unlikely to take or reverse the case. The opinion also illustrates the high threshold a single Justice applies to emergency stays, meaning similar applicants will face a demanding test to pause sentences pending Supreme Court attention.