Blodgett v. Campbell

Background

The state prison superintendent, James Blodgett, asked a single Justice to undo a decision by the full Ninth Circuit panel that sent a death row inmate’s case back to the district court. The inmate, Charles Campbell, had filed a second habeas petition challenging hanging as cruel and unusual punishment. The history includes a long delay in the appeals process and a prior application to this Court for mandamus when the appeal remained undecided for years.

Reasoning

Justice O’Connor considered whether she had power to grant the requested relief. She explained that a Circuit Justice’s authority is generally limited to temporary measures that protect this Court’s ability to hear a case, such as stays. She said she had not found any precedent allowing a single Justice to reverse or vacate a court of appeals’ remand order as a final act. Although she expressed concern about the slow handling of the case, she concluded she lacked authority and therefore dismissed the application without prejudice.

Real world impact

Because the application was dismissed, the appeals court’s remand stands for now, and the district court is to hold or continue the evidentiary hearing on whether hanging violates the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment. The dismissal was procedural, not a decision on the merits, so the underlying dispute about the death penalty method will proceed in the lower courts.

Dissents or concurrances

Two judges on the Ninth Circuit panel dissented from the remand denial, saying the State had suffered serious prejudice from the delay and that, without any showing that the earlier district-court hearings were legally inadequate, there was no reason to order a new evidentiary hearing. Their view helps explain why the case has generated strong disagreement at the appellate level.