Delo v. Blair

Background

A state sought to lift a court-ordered pause on a scheduled execution for a man named Blair, who has been sentenced to death and filed multiple federal post-conviction (habeas) petitions. The Court of Appeals had entered a temporary stay to review Blair’s third federal petition, which includes affidavits claiming he is innocent. The District Court denied Blair an evidentiary hearing and rejected his claim, and the State asked the Supreme Court to vacate the appeals court’s stay.

Reasoning

The Supreme Court, in a per curiam opinion, applied the prevailing standard that it is “particularly egregious” to grant a stay on second or later habeas petitions unless substantial grounds for relief exist. The Court agreed with the District Court that Blair’s claims were, for practical purposes, indistinguishable from recent claims the Court rejected in Herrera and found no substantial grounds warranting further delay. The per curiam opinion concluded the Court of Appeals’ stay was an abuse of discretion and ordered it vacated, allowing the state to proceed.

Real world impact

The decision clears the way for the state to resume its execution timetable in this case and signals that courts will be highly reluctant to let later post-conviction petitions delay executions without strong, new evidence. It narrows the circumstances under which successive petitions can secure stays and limits additional time for detailed appellate review when claims mirror recent Supreme Court decisions.

Dissents or concurrances

Justice Blackmun, joined by Justice Stevens, dissented, arguing the Court erred twice: by not giving proper deference to the appeals court’s stay and by leaving in place the District Court’s denial without an evidentiary hearing despite seven affidavits alleging innocence.