Supreme Court of the United States · Official docket →
Mike Brown, Acting Warden v. Ervine Davenport
Paid petition · United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, No. 17-2267 · judgment June 30, 2020
Before the decision, about 2.7× the 4.1% base rate. The model weighted this up for a state or local-government petitioner, a circuit split argued in the petition, and a dissent in the court below (flagged in the petition).
Question presented
In Brecht v. Abrahamson, 507 U.S. 619 (1993), the Court held that the test for determining whether a constitutional error was harmless on habeas review is whether the defendant suffered "actual prejudice." Congress later enacted 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d) (1), which prohibits habeas relief on a claim that was adjudicated on the merits by a state court unless the adjudication "resulted in a decision that was contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal law." Although the Court has held that the Brecht test "subsumes" § 2254(d)(1)'s requirements, the Court declared in Davis v. Ayala, 576 U.S. 257, 267 (2015), that those requirements are still a "precondition" for relief and that a state-court harmlessness determination under Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18 (1967), still retains "significance" under the Brecht test. The question presented is: May a federal habeas court grant relief based solely on its conclusion that the Brecht test is satisfied, as the Sixth Circuit held, or must the court also find that the state court's Chapman application was unreasonable under § 2254(d)(1), as the Second, Third, Seventh, Ninth, and Tenth Circuits have held?
Counsel of record
For petitioner
Fadwa A. Hammoud
Michigan Department of Attorney General
For respondent
Tasha Joy Bahal
Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP
Case
Conference history
Distributed for 2 conferences
Amicus briefs
3 merits
(3 supporting pet./neither)
Argument & decision
Argued October 5, 2021 — Fadwa A. Hammoud · Tasha Bahal. Audio and transcript
Decided April 21, 2022. Opinion by Gorsuch.
Proceedings
- May 23 2022Judgment Issued
- Apr 21 2022Judgment REVERSED. Gorsuch, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Roberts, C. J., and Thomas, Alito, Kavanaugh, and Barrett, JJ., joined. Kagan, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which Breyer and Sotomayor, JJ., joined.
- Oct 05 2021Argued. For petitioner: Fadwa A. Hammoud, Solicitor General, Lansing, Mich. For respondent: Tasha Bahal, Boston, Mass.
- Sep 01 2021Reply of petitioner Mike Brown, Acting Warden filed. (Distributed)
- Aug 03 2021CIRCULATED
- Aug 02 2021Brief of respondent Ervine Davenport filed.
- Jul 28 2021Record requested from the U.S.C.A. 6th Circuit.
- Jul 28 2021Record received from the U.S.C.A. 6th Circuit has been electronically filed.
- Jul 13 2021ARGUMENT SET FOR Tuesday, October 5, 2021.
- Jul 01 2021Corrected Certificate of Word Compliance filed with respect to amici curiae of Jonathan F. Mitchell and Adam K. Mortara.
- Jun 17 2021Brief amicus curiae of Criminal Justice Legal Foundation filed.
- Jun 17 2021Brief amici curiae of States of Arkansas, et al. filed.
- Jun 17 2021Brief amici curiae of Jonathan F. Mitchell & Adam K. Mortara filed.
- Jun 10 2021Brief of petitioner Mike Brown, Acting Warden filed.
- Jun 10 2021Joint appendix volume I, II, and III filed. (Statement of costs filed)
- May 12 2021Blanket Consent filed by Petitioner, Mike Brown, Acting Warden
- Apr 22 2021Motion to extend the time to file the briefs on the merits is granted. The time to file the joint appendix and petitioner's brief on the merits is extended to and including June 10, 2021. The time to file respondent's brief on the merits is extended to and including August 2, 2021.
- Apr 20 2021Motion for an extension of time filed.
- Apr 05 2021Petition GRANTED.
- Mar 29 2021DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 4/1/2021.
- Mar 10 2021DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 3/26/2021.
- Mar 08 2021Reply of petitioner Mike Brown, Acting Warden filed. (Distributed)
- Feb 18 2021Brief of respondent Ervine Davenport in opposition filed.
- Feb 01 2021Application (20A116) referred to the Court.
- Feb 01 2021Application (20A116) granted by the Court. The application to recall and stay the mandate, presented to Justice Kavanaugh and by him referred to the Court, is granted, and the mandate of the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit in case No. 17-2267 is recalled and stayed pending the disposition of the petition for a writ of certiorari. Should the petition for a writ of certiorari be denied, this stay shall terminate automatically. In the event the petition for a writ of certiorari is granted, the stay shall terminate upon the sending down of the judgment of this Court. Justice Sotomayor would deny the application.
- Jan 21 2021Letter of applicant Mike Brown, Acting Warden received.
- Jan 19 2021Reply of applicant Mike Brown, Acting Warden filed.
- Jan 12 2021Response to application from respondent Ervine Davenport filed.
- Jan 04 2021Motion to extend the time to file a response to the petition for a writ of certiorari is granted and the time is extended to and including February 18, 2021.
- Dec 31 2020Response to application (20A116) requested by Justice Kavanaugh, due Tuesday, January 12, 2021, by 4 p.m. ET.
- Dec 30 2020Motion to extend the time to file a response to the petition for a writ of certiorari from January 19, 2021 to February 18, 2021, submitted to The Clerk.
- Dec 21 2020Application (20A116) to recall and stay mandate, submitted to Justice Kavanaugh.
- Dec 14 2020Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due January 19, 2021)