Delo v. Blair

Background

A man named Blair, sentenced to death, had a later federal challenge to his conviction that a federal appeals court temporarily stayed to review. The State asked the Supreme Court to vacate that stay. The District Court had concluded the new claims were essentially the same as those in a recent case called Herrera.

Reasoning

The Court applied the existing standard that it is “particularly egregious” to enter a stay on a second or later federal challenge unless there are substantial grounds for relief. The Court agreed with the District Court’s view that Blair’s new claim mirrors Herrera and found that no substantial grounds were shown. The Court concluded it would be an abuse of discretion for a federal court to delay the State’s criminal process for claims that are indistinguishable from those already rejected, and therefore it vacated the appeals court’s stay. Justice Souter would have denied the State’s request to vacate.

Real world impact

The ruling allows the State to move forward with the execution while Blair’s late federal challenge is not given further delay. It applies a strict standard to later federal challenges, making it harder to obtain stays when a court finds the new claim resembles a previously rejected claim. The decision does not resolve whether Blair is actually innocent and does not provide a final ruling on the merits of his factual claims.

Dissents or concurrances

Justice Blackmun, joined by Justice Stevens, dissented. He argued the majority gave too little deference to the appeals court and that the District Court erred by denying Blair an evidentiary hearing after Blair submitted seven affidavits suggesting innocence.