Must indigent death-sentenced state prisoners exhaust state remedies before a federal court may authorize access to expert services under 18 U.S.C. § 3599(f)?

QUESTION PRESENTED CAPITAL CASE In 18 U.S.C. § 3599, Congress created a right for indigent death-sentenced state prisoners to obtain legal and expert services, including services in support of requests for clemency, and a framework for federal courts to apply in deciding whether a prisoner is entitled to such assistance. In Ayestas v. Davis, 138 S. Ct. 1080, 1088 (2018), this Court rejected a novel “substantial need” test for expert services that was “more demanding” than the one required by § 3599's text. Petitioner is an indigent death-sentenced prisoner in South Dakota. In support of his request for gubernatorial clemency, he seeks to present psychiatric and neuropsychological experts to attest to his significant cognitive and psychiatric impairments. However, in the absence of a court order, state corrections officials have for years refused to permit his experts to evaluate Petitioner in person. Petitioner moved the federal court, pursuant to its authority under § 3599, to issue an order granting Petitioner the right “to obtain” those expert services. The district court ruled that it lacked jurisdiction to issue such an order. On appeal, rather than ruling on the scope of a federal district court’s power to issue orders in aid of its jurisdiction under § 3599, the Eighth Circuit adopted a novel exhaustion requirement, holding that Petitioner had not exhausted potentially available clemency remedies from the Governor and dismissing the appeal. This case presents the question: Must indigent death-sentenced state prisoners exhaust state remedies before a federal court may authorize access to expert services under 18 U.S.C. § 3599(f)? i