Supreme Court of the United States · Official docket →
Gigi Jordan v. Amy Lamanna, Superintendent, Bedford Hills Correctional Facility
Paid petition · United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, No. 20-3317 · judgment May 5, 2022
Before the decision, roughly the 4.1% base rate. The model weighted this up for counsel who has won certiorari before and a Second Circuit decision below.
Question presented
Under 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1), a state prisoner is entitled to habeas corpus relief when the last reasoned statecourt decision was either “contrary to” or “involved an unreasonable application of” this Court’s precedents. A state prisoner is entitled to relief under to the “unreasonable application” prong of this disjunctive test if “the state court identifies the correct governing legal rule from this Court’s cases but unreasonably applies it to the facts of the particular state prisoner’s case.” Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S. 362, 407 (2000). The lower courts are in disarray over the proper implementation of the unreasonable-application standard. Some have required precisely on-point decisions from this Court, while others have not. This case squarely implicates the split: The Second Circuit reversed a grant of habeas relief with respect to a shocking courtroom closure during a criminal trial, not because the state court’s application of this Court’s general Sixth Amendment principles was facially reasonable (it was not), but because this Court has not previously held that the Public Trial Clause was violated on identical or nearly identical facts. Other circuits have eschewed any such requirement and would have affirmed the district court’s grant of habeas relief. *** The question presented is whether a federal habeas petitioner seeking relief on the basis of a violation of the Public Trial Clause can demonstrate an “unreasonable application of clearly established Federal law” within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1) in the absence of a Supreme Court precedent involving analytically indistinguishable facts.
Counsel of record
For petitioner
Michael B. Kimberly
McDermott Will & Emery LLP
For respondent
Steven Chiajon Wu
New York County District Attorney's Office
Proceedings
- Feb 27 2023Petition dismissed as moot.
- Feb 08 2023DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 2/24/2023.
- Jan 10 2023Suggestions of death and mootness filed by counsel for petitioner.
- Dec 29 2022Application (22A551) denied by Justice Sotomayor. Upon further consideration of the application of counsel for the applicant, the response, and the reply filed thereto, it is ordered that the stay heretofore issued by the undersigned on December 20, 2022, be, and the same is hereby, vacated. The application is, in all respects, denied.
- Dec 28 2022Reply of applicant Gigi Jordan filed.
- Dec 27 2022Response to application from respondent Amy Lamanna filed.
- Dec 21 2022Response Requested. (Due January 20, 2023)
- Dec 20 2022Application (22A551) for stay, submitted to Justice Sotomayor.
- Dec 20 2022Upon consideration of the application of counsel for the applicant, it is ordered that the December 19, 2022 order of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, case No. 20-3317, is hereby stayed pending further order of Justice Sotomayor or of the Court. It is further ordered that a response to the application be filed on or before Tuesday, December 27, 2022, by 4 p.m. (EST).
- Dec 14 2022DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 1/6/2023.
- Dec 07 2022Waiver of right of respondent Amy Lamanna to respond filed.
- Nov 04 2022Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due December 8, 2022)
- Jul 20 2022Application (22A38) granted by Justice Sotomayor extending the time to file until November 4, 2022.
- Jul 14 2022Application (22A38) to extend the time to file a petition for a writ of certiorari from September 7, 2022 to November 4, 2022, submitted to Justice Sotomayor.