No. 22-5512
Maurice Diggins v. United States
Response WaivedIFP
Tags: 18-usc-249 district-court-jurisdiction due-process jurisdiction public-interest public-interest-prosecution racially-motivated-assault substantial-justice thirteenth-amendment
Latest Conference:
2022-10-28
Question Presented (from Petition)
Does a United States district court constitutionally have jurisdiction under the Thirteenth Amendment when the United States prosecutes a defendant for a racially motivated assault under 18 USC Sec. 249(a) without the Government stating clearly pursuant to 18 USC 249(b)(1)(D) the reason why that prosecution is "in the public interest and necessary to secure substantial justice?"
Question Presented (AI Summary)
Does a United States district court have jurisdiction under the Thirteenth Amendment for a racially motivated assault prosecution under 18 USC Sec. 249(a) without the Government stating the reason under 18 USC 249(b)(1)(D) that the prosecution is in the public interest and necessary for substantial justice?
Docket Entries
2022-10-31
Petition DENIED.
2022-10-13
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 10/28/2022.
2022-10-11
Waiver of right of respondent United States to respond filed.
2022-08-29
Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due October 12, 2022)
Attorneys
Maurice Diggins
William Thomas Murphy — William T. Murphy Law Offices, Petitioner
United States
Elizabeth B. Prelogar — Solicitor General, Respondent