Question Presented (AI Summary)
Whether federal inmates who did not challenge their convictions on the ground that the statute of conviction did not criminalize their activity due to established circuit precedent may apply for habeas relief under § 2241 after this Court later makes clear in a retroactively applicable decision that the circuit precedent was wrong and that they are legally innocent of the crime of conviction
Question Presented (OCR Extract)
QUESTION PRESENTED Under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, federal inmates can collaterally challenge their convictions on any ground cognizable on collateral review, with successive attacks limited to certain claims that indicate factual innocence or that rely on constitutional-law decisions made retroactive by this Court. 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (h). 28 U.S.C. § 2255(e), however, also allows inmates to collaterally challenge their convictions outside this process through a traditional habeas action under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 whenever it “appears that the remedy by [§ 2255] motion is inadequate or ineffective to test the legality of [their] detention.” The question presented is whether federal inmates who did not—because established circuit precedent stood firmly against them—challenge their convictions on the ground that the statute of conviction did not criminalize their activity may apply for habeas relief under § 2241 after this Court later makes clear in a retroactively applicable decision that the circuit precedent was wrong and that they are legally innocent of the crime of conviction.
Docket Entries
2023-06-28
Record returned to the U.S.C.A. 8th Circuit (1 envelope).
2023-06-22
Adjudged to be AFFIRMED. Thomas, J., delivered the <a href = 'https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/22pdf/21-857_4357.pdf'>opinion</a> of the Court, in which Roberts, C. J., and Alito, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, and Barrett, JJ., joined. Sotomayor and Kagan, JJ., filed a dissenting opinion. Jackson, J., filed a dissenting opinion.
2023-01-04
Record received from the U.S.C.A. 8th Circuit (1 envelope).
2022-11-01
Argued. For petitioner: Daniel R. Ortiz, Charlottesville, Va. For respondent: Eric J. Feigin, Deputy Solicitor General, Department of Justice, Washington, D. C. For Court-appointed amicus curiae in support of the judgment below: Morgan L. Ratner, Washington, D. C.
2022-10-12
Reply of petitioner Marcus DeAngelo Jones filed. (Distributed)
2022-10-12
Reply of respondent Dewayne Hendrix, Warden to brief of Court-appointed amicus curiae in support of the judgment below filed. (Distributed)
2022-10-11
Motion for divided argument filed by the Solicitor General GRANTED.
2022-09-19
Brief amicus curiae of Criminal Justice Legal Foundation filed. (Distributed)
2022-09-15
Motion for divided argument filed by the Solicitor General.
2022-09-12
Brief of Court-appointed amicus curiae in support of the judgment below filed. (Distributed)
2022-09-12
Record requested from the U.S.C.A. 8th Circuit.
2022-08-08
Brief of respondent Dewayne Hendrix, Warden supporting affirmance filed.
2022-08-03
ARGUMENT SET FOR Tuesday, November 1, 2022.
2022-07-21
Brief amici curiae of The National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, et al. filed.
2022-07-21
Brief amicus curiae of National Association of Federal Defenders filed.
2022-07-21
Brief amici curiae of Habeas Scholars filed.
2022-07-14
Brief of petitioner Marcus DeAngelo Jones filed.
2022-07-14
Joint appendix filed (statement of cost filed.)
2022-06-28
Morgan L. Ratner, Esquire, of Washington, D. C., is invited to brief and argue this case, as amicus curiae, in support of the judgment below.
2022-06-21
Motion to extend the time to file the briefs on the merits granted. The time to file the joint appendix and petitioner's brief on the merits is extended to and including July 14, 2022. The time to file respondent's brief on the merits is extended to and including September 12, 2022.
2022-06-17
Letter of the Solicitor General notifying the Court that government will defend the judgment but not the rationale of the court of appeals' decision. (Distributed)
2022-06-03
Blanket Consent filed by Petitioner, Marcus DeAngelo Jones
2022-06-02
Motion for an extension of time to file the briefs on the merits filed.
2022-05-16
Petition GRANTED.
2022-05-09
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 5/12/2022.
2022-04-13
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 4/29/2022.
2022-04-12
Reply of petitioner Marcus DeAngelo Jones filed. (Distributed)
2022-03-30
Brief of respondent Dewayne Hendrix, Warden in opposition filed.
2022-02-18
Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted and the time is further extended to and including March 30, 2022.
2022-02-17
Motion to extend the time to file a response from February 28, 2022 to March 30, 2022, submitted to The Clerk.
2022-02-02
Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted and the time is extended to and including February 28, 2022.
2022-02-01
Motion to extend the time to file a response from January 28, 2022 to February 28, 2022, submitted to The Clerk.
2021-12-29
Response Requested. (Due January 28, 2022)
2021-12-22
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 1/7/2022.
2021-12-17
Waiver of right of respondent Dewayne Hendrix, Warden to respond filed.
2021-12-07
Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due January 10, 2022)
2021-10-29
Application (21A117) granted by Justice Kavanaugh extending the time to file until December 9, 2021.
2021-10-22
Application (21A117) to extend the time to file a petition for a writ of certiorari from November 4, 2021 to December 9, 2021, submitted to Justice Kavanaugh.
Attorneys
Court-appointed amicus curiae in support of the judgment below
Criminal Justice Legal Foundation
Dewayne Hendrix, Warden supporting affirmance
National Association of Federal Defenders
The National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, The American Civil Liberties Union, and The Arkansas Civil Liberties Foundation