Talmore v. United States
The Court sent this case back to a federal appeals court to reconsider it in light of its recent decision striking down part of a law used to give longer prison sentences to repeat offenders.
Justice Alito, agreeing with sending the case back, stressed that the Court was not saying whether this particular person actually deserves any relief -- that question is left entirely to the lower court.
How it got here: The Ninth Circuit had ruled against the petitioner; the Supreme Court held his certiorari petition pending its decision in Johnson v. United States.
The Case in Depth
What happened
The petitioner had asked the Supreme Court to review a decision from a federal appeals court involving his sentence, which may have been increased under a provision of a repeat-offender sentencing law. While his request sat pending, the Supreme Court separately ruled in another case that part of that same law was unconstitutionally vague.
The question before the Court
Should this man's case be sent back for a fresh look after the Court struck down part of a repeat-offender sentencing law?
Why it matters
People sentenced under the now-invalidated part of the repeat-offender sentencing law may get a chance to have their sentences reexamined. This order shows how the Court is handling a large batch of similar cases without deciding, case by case, who actually wins.
What changes now
The case returns to the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, which must now reconsider its earlier decision in light of the Johnson ruling on the vagueness of the residual clause. The Supreme Court has not decided whether the petitioner is actually entitled to any relief; that determination is left entirely to the lower court on remand.
What this does not decide
This order does not decide whether the petitioner is actually entitled to relief under the Johnson ruling. Justice Alito specifically noted that the Court's practice of sending back many similar cases does not reflect any view on the merits of this particular petitioner's claim.
Concurrences and dissents
Concurrence — Justice Alito
“the Court's disposition of this petition does not reflect any view regarding petitioner's entitlement to relief”Alito clarifies that sending the case back implies no opinion on whether the petitioner will actually win.
Justice Alito agreed with sending the case back but wrote separately to clarify that the Court's routine practice of holding and then remanding many similar petitions does not indicate any view on whether this particular petitioner would actually win relief. He explained that some petitioners might not qualify for relief for unrelated procedural reasons, and the order should not be read as favoring this petitioner's case.
How the Court got there
The legal reasoning, step by step
- The Court had been holding this petition, along with many similar ones, while it decided a separate case -- Johnson v. United States -- about whether a specific part of a repeat-offender sentencing law, known as the residual clause, was too vague to be enforced.
- After ruling in Johnson that the residual clause was unconstitutionally vague, the Court applied its standard practice of sending related pending cases back to the lower courts to reconsider them in light of that new ruling, rather than deciding each one itself.
- The Court granted permission for the petitioner to proceed without paying court fees, agreed to hear the case, and then vacated the lower court's judgment so the case could be reconsidered.
- Justice Alito noted that the Court's routine practice does not distinguish between petitioners who would actually benefit from the Johnson ruling and those who would not for unrelated procedural reasons, so the order says nothing about whether this particular petitioner deserves relief.
Doctrinal impact
Cases affected by this decision
Reaffirms Johnson v. United States (576 U.S. ----, 135 S.Ct. 2551)
This order applies Johnson's holding that a repeat-offender sentencing provision is unconstitutionally vague.