Slack v. McDaniel

Background

The Supreme Court granted review, restored a Ninth Circuit case to the calendar for reargument, and directed the parties in the appeal to file supplemental briefs. The Court specified two questions for briefing: whether provisions of the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (AEDPA), including 28 U.S.C. §2253(c) and §2244(b), control the proceedings on appeal; and if AEDPA does control, whether a certificate of appealability may issue under §2253(c). The Court set page limits and firm deadlines for supplemental briefs, replies, and invited the Solicitor General to file a brief. It also allowed limited amicus briefs and stated that Rule 29.2 does not apply.

Reasoning

The central procedural question is whether AEDPA’s rules apply to how this appeal must proceed and whether a formal certificate is required to continue the appeal. Rather than deciding those questions immediately, the Court asked the parties and the Solicitor General to submit focused written arguments on both points before reargument. The order does not resolve the merits of the underlying dispute. Instead, it narrows the issues for further briefing and schedules the case for additional argument after the Court reviews the supplemental submissions.

Real world impact

For the people and lawyers involved, the order forces quick, focused filings under strict page limits and deadlines and invites the federal government to weigh in. If the Court later finds AEDPA controls, that determination could change how appeals like this proceed and whether an appellant must obtain a certificate of appealability. For now, the decision is procedural and not a final ruling on the parties’ underlying claims.