Supreme Court of the United States · Official docket →
William John Easterling v. United States
IFP petition · United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, No. 24-2083, 25-1016 · judgment December 18, 2025
Question presented
Whether a court of appeals denies due process and exceeds the limited certificate-of-appealability inquiry required by Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473 (2000), and Buck v. Davis, 580 U.S. 100 (2017), when it denies a COA by conducting a full merits and prejudice review of a constitutional claim that the district court never adjudicated. Whether the omission of an essential jurisdictional element from a federal indictment constitutes a structural defect requiring automatic reversal, rather than harmless-error or prejudice review, under the Fifth Amendment Grand Jury Clause and this Court s treatment of omitted-element cases, an issue this Court expressly left open in United States v. ResendizPonce, 549 U.S. 102 (2007). Whether the government must prove the federal nexus as a separate jurisdictional fact, where the Sixth Circuit's contrary reading treats mens rea for the offense as satisfying the interstate-commerce nexus in conflict with United States v. Terrell, 700 F.3d 755 (5th Cir. 2012), and violates the fair-warning, lenity, and federalism principles recognized in United States v. Lopez, 514 U.S. 549 (1995), and United States v. Morrison, 529 U.S. 598 (2000). -2- 26A63 -3- Whether a court of appeals may apply a prejudice or harmlesserror standard to a conceded structural defect in a grand jury indictment, in tension with Stirone v. United States, 361 U.S. 212 (1960) and the rule adopted in other circuits. Whether a court of appeals denies due process when it grants leave to file a supplemental en banc petition but fails to circulate it to active judges, denying full-court review. Whether a court of appeals denies due process when a clerk withholds a timely § 455(a) recusal motion and the panel applies the stricter § 455(b) standard instead of addressing appearance of impropriety. Whether a court of appeals may deny COA while ignoring or improperly foreclosing claims of ineffective assistance of trial and appellate counsel for failing to raise a conceded structural defect in the indictment. -3- 26A63 -4-
Counsel of record
For petitioner
William John Easterling
For respondent
D. John Sauer
Solicitor General
Case
Subject area
Criminal Procedure (estimated from the questions presented, in the Supreme Court Database’s categories)
Conference history
—
Linked docket
26A63
Proceedings
- Oct 15 2026Waiver of right of respondent United States to respond filed.
- Sep 14 2026Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due November 5, 2026)
- Jul 16 2026Application (26A63) granted by Justice Kavanaugh extending the time to file until September 18, 2026.
- Jun 30 2026Application (26A63) to extend the time to file a petition for a writ of certiorari from July 20, 2026 to September 18, 2026, submitted to Justice Kavanaugh.