We found a match
Your institution may have access to this item. Find your institution then sign in to continue.
- Title
Postconviction Remedies, Retroactivity, and Montgomery v. Louisiana's Other New Rule.
- Authors
Meehan, Taylor A. R.
- Abstract
The U.S. Supreme Court has turned its attention back to the law of habeas corpus, with a string of new decisions that emphasize the limited scope of federal habeas relief. But focusing one's sights on only those decisions would overlook what has transpired at the Supreme Court in recent years in state habeas cases coming directly to the Supreme Court from the state postconviction courts. Montgomery v. Louisiana, in particular, shifted the division of power between the Supreme Court and state postconviction courts for questions conventionally considered to be questions of state law. Montgomery, on the surface, is a decision about retroactivity and the effect of new Supreme Court decisions on old state-court criminal sentences. Must those new Supreme Court decisions be a basis for retrospectively invalidating final sentences, even decades later? Montgomery says yes, at least for some new Supreme Court decisions. Below the surface, Montgomery rests on an unstated assumption that where there is a violation of a constitutional right, as revealed by a new Supreme Court decision, a state postconviction court must provide a collateral remedy, at least in some circumstances. This article examines that assumption, its seeming inconsistency with the Supreme Court's recent federal habeas decisions, and its broader implications for what the Constitution has to say about constitutionally required collateral remedies in state and federal habeas courts.
- Subjects
UNITED States. Supreme Court; HABEAS corpus; CONSTITUTIONAL law; CRIMINAL sentencing; POSTCONVICTION remedies
- Publication
Missouri Law Review, 2024, Vol 88, Issue 4, p1077
- ISSN
0026-6604
- Publication type
Article