Stephenson v. United States

Background

A man who pleaded guilty to distributing crack cocaine later said his lawyer failed to file an appeal arguing the drug was not crack. He had waived most appellate issues but reserved the right to challenge the guilty plea itself. A federal district court rejected his claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, and the Seventh Circuit summarily affirmed after comparing his case to a similar one called Nunez.

Reasoning

The central question became whether the earlier waiver in the plea agreement prevented the defendant from bringing an ineffective-assistance claim and whether the appeals court’s reasoning matched later guidance. The Solicitor General filed a brief saying the Government’s prior position was wrong and asked the Court to grant, vacate, and remand (GVR) for reconsideration. The Supreme Court granted review, vacated the Seventh Circuit’s judgment, and sent the case back so the appeals court can rethink its decision in light of the Solicitor General’s changed position.

Real world impact

The ruling does not decide whether the defendant’s underlying claim succeeds. Instead, it gives him another opportunity to press his ineffective-assistance argument in the appeals court under the Government’s new view. The outcome remains unresolved and could change depending on how the Seventh Circuit applies the Solicitor General’s position.

Dissents or concurrances

Justice Scalia wrote a dissent saying he would have denied review and arguing that using the Solicitor General’s change of position to order a GVR is inappropriate when the lower court’s reasoning might not rest on that error.