Johnson v. Alabama

Background

An individual asked the Supreme Court to review a decision from Alabama’s Court of Criminal Appeals. The petitioner also asked to proceed without paying court fees. The opposing party in the state case (the respondent) filed a brief on May 10, 2017, asserting a position that referenced a prior Alabama decision called Ex parte Beckworth, which turns on state procedural law.

Reasoning

The Court was asked whether the state judgment should be vacated and sent back for further consideration in light of the respondent’s position and the state-law decision Beckworth. The Supreme Court granted the petition, allowed the fee waiver, vacated the judgment below, and remanded the case to the Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals for reconsideration in light of the respondent’s brief. The order does not resolve the underlying merits; it directs the state court to reconsider under the specified state-law framing.

Real world impact

The immediate effect is to erase the lower court’s judgment and require the Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals to reconsider the case with the respondent’s position and Beckworth in mind. This is a procedural, not final, outcome and could change how the state court decides the matter. The decision touches on how the Supreme Court uses vacatur when a party’s changed position affects state court outcomes.

Dissents or concurrances

The Chief Justice, joined by three Justices, dissented. He argued that vacating a state court judgment based on a party’s brief is extraordinary, noted that Beckworth is a state procedural ruling, and emphasized that state collateral review is governed by state law.