Should this Court exercise its original habeas jurisdiction to transfer this petition to the district court for a hearing regarding Petitioner's substantial evidence that at least one capital sentencing juror relied on anti-gay stereotypes and animus to sentence him death?

QUESTION PRESENTED CAPITAL CASE Charles Rhines repeatedly has sought to prove that jurors who sentenced him to death relied on anti-gay prejudice in making their decision. This Court removed a barrier to the consideration of similar evidence of racial bias in Pena-Rodriguez v. Colorado, 137 S. Ct. 855 (2017). After that decision, Mr. Rhines sought an evidentiary hearing in the state and federal courts on the basis of multiple jurors’ statements reflecting stereotypes and animus aimed at his sexual orientation. One juror who had voted for death stated that “we also knew that [Mr. Rhines] was a homosexual and thought that he shouldn’t be able to spend his life with men in prison.” A second juror indicated about deliberations: “One juror made...a comment that if he’s gay, we’d be sending him where he wants to go if we voted for [life imprisonment without the possibility of parole].” And a third juror noted that there had been “lots of discussion of homosexuality” and “a lot of disgust.” No court has permitted a hearing to assess these statements or judged the constitutionality of Mr. Rhines’s death sentence in light of them. The federal courts ruled that Mr. Rhines’s attempt to obtain relief from judgment and amend his initial habeas corpus petition constituted an unauthorized “second or successive” petition for a writ of habeas corpus. Mr. Rhines has no avenue for relief, except in this Court, for his claims that the jurors’ reliance on his sexual orientation in making their sentencing decision violated his due process and Eighth Amendment rights. The question presented is: Should this Court exercise its original habeas jurisdiction to transfer this petition to the district court for a hearing regarding Petitioner’s substantial evidence that at least one capital sentencing juror relied on anti-gay stereotypes and animus to sentence him death? i