Felker v. Turpin

Supreme Court of the United States · 1996 · Federal Courts

Federal CourtsHabeas CorpusSupreme Court JurisdictionSuspension ClauseExceptions ClauseAEDPAsecond or successive petitionsoriginal habeas

Facts

Felker was convicted in Georgia of murder, rape, aggravated sodomy, and false imprisonment, and was sentenced to death for murder. After his conviction, state collateral review and his first federal habeas petition were denied. Following AEDPA's enactment, Felker sought leave in the Eleventh Circuit to file a second federal habeas petition raising a reasonable-doubt instruction claim and a forensic-evidence-based innocence claim; the Eleventh Circuit denied leave under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b). Felker then sought Supreme Court review and an original writ of habeas corpus, arguing among other things that AEDPA unconstitutionally restricted the Court's jurisdiction and suspended the writ.

Issue

Whether Title I of AEDPA bars the Supreme Court from entertaining an original habeas petition, whether AEDPA's restriction on review of court-of-appeals gatekeeping decisions violates Article III's Exceptions Clause, and whether AEDPA's new limits on second or successive habeas petitions violate the Suspension Clause.

Rule

AEDPA's 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)(E) bars Supreme Court review by appeal or certiorari of a court of appeals' denial of leave to file a second or successive habeas application, but it does not repeal the Court's authority to entertain original habeas petitions under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. AEDPA's new restrictions on second or successive petitions inform and limit the standards for granting habeas relief, and those restrictions do not constitute a suspension of the writ because they are a permissible modification of longstanding limits on repetitive habeas filings.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

Darren Pike, a state prisoner in Ohio, previously lost his first federal habeas petition in district court. He later asked the Sixth Circuit for authorization to file a second § 2254 petition in the district court, and the court of appeals denied authorization under the federal gatekeeping statute. Darren then files a petition for a writ of certiorari in the Supreme Court seeking review of that denial.

How should the Supreme Court treat Darren's certiorari petition?

Explanation. The majority held that 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)(E) bars Supreme Court review by appeal or certiorari of a court of appeals' grant or denial of authorization to file a second or successive habeas application in district court. The Court therefore lacks jurisdiction to review that gatekeeping denial through certiorari.