Gonzalez v. Thaler (10-895)

argument 10-895

Gonzalez v. Thaler

Supreme Court of the United States 1h 1m 7 speakers 8 chapters transcribed 4 days ago official recording ↗

▲ 0

Transcript

jump: chapters · speakers · find in transcript

Transcript

Transcript generated automatically by AI and may contain errors.

What is the role of a Certificate of Appealability (COA) in determining jurisdiction?

John G. Roberts 0:00

Your argument next in case 10.895, Gonzalez v. Thaler. Ms. Millett.

Katherine M. Millett 0:05

Mr. Chief Justice, and may it please the Court. The Court of Appeals in this case had jurisdiction to adjudicate the appeal, but in doing so, it decided the case wrongly. Mr. Gonzalez's petition for habeas corpus was timely because it was filed within a year of the conclusion of direct appellate proceedings in the State Court. And within a year of that Court's ending, of his appeal process. With respect to jurisdiction, jurisdiction existed because a certificate of appealability was issued. It rested upon a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. To be sure, the judge in issuing that certificate did not identify the substantial constitutional question required by 2253C3. That is a requirement

Katherine M. Millett 0:56

It is mandatory, but it is not jurisdictional. What if he

John G. Roberts 0:59

had identified a constitutional issue, speedy trial issue? Does that give the Court the authority to consider a different constitutional issue, a Fourth Amendment issue?

Katherine M. Millett 1:11

Yes, it does. This is a gatekeeping function to identify which case — which appeals should go forward and claim the attention of the Court with the text of the statute. And 22 — That's on page, excuse me, page 3A of the appendix to the blue brief. It provides that an appeal may not go forward, and if a certificate is issued, appeal may go forward. The operative language here in C-1 is that this is about an appeal going forward. So once the certificate identifies issues, the appeal goes forward. It's much like 1292B, where certification of questions comes to an appellate court and they decide whether to take interlocutory review. Once they do, they're not bound to just those questions. The entire order comes up for review.

Katherine M. Millett 2:02

So what

John G. Roberts 2:02

if it identifies something that is not remotely a federal constitutional issue. By the terms of the COA, it's quite clear whether it's a state law issue or something else. There's no constitutional plausibility on

Katherine M. Millett 2:15

the

John G. Roberts 2:15

face of it. Does that still work for you?

Katherine M. Millett 2:18

It works in the sense that it's not a jurisdictional bar to going forward. It is a violation of C-3. If timely raised by the State, then it can either be dismissed or revisited. by the original judge, an appeal from the author.

Antonin Scalia 2:31

How do you decide whether it's a jurisdictional bar? You acknowledge that the issuance by a judge of a certificate of appealability is a jurisdictional step, right?

Katherine M. Millett 2:44

That

Antonin Scalia 2:45

is jurisdictional. If he doesn't do that, there's no jurisdiction.

Katherine M. Millett 2:48

Because this Court held him

Antonin Scalia 2:48

over out. Okay. So the issue is whether — C-3, which says the certificate of appealability shall indicate which specific issue or issues satisfy the showing required, whether that provision is a requirement for the validity of the certificate of appealability. If it is, then there's no jurisdiction because the certificate of appealability is invalid.

Katherine M. Millett 3:18

Well,

Antonin Scalia 3:19

I don't agree. Isn't that right?

Katherine M. Millett 3:20

I don't agree that the so-called content validity of a document that is post hoc certifying a gatekeeping requirement is a self-jurisdiction because there is a —

Antonin Scalia 3:32

Let's take the Fourth Amendment, I mean, which says no warrants shall issue but upon probable cause. Okay, so — But then it goes on, supported by oath or affirmation and particularly describing the place to be searched and the persons or things to be seized. Is the warrant valid if indeed it does not meet those requirements of being supported by oath or affirmation and particularly describing the…

Katherine M. Millett 4:00

No, or it may well not be valid if it doesn't.

Antonin Scalia 4:02

It won't be valid. It'll just be invalid. But

Katherine M. Millett 4:03

the certificate of appealability is invalid as a matter of law here. It's an incorrect action by the Court. That doesn't make it jurisdictional. Just warrants aren't jurisdictional

Anthony M. Kennedy 4:13

either in that sense. Just to take a kind of nutty example, Ms. Millett, suppose that a judge took a blank piece of paper and typed the word certificate of appealability on top and issued it. Still jurisdiction to take the appeal? No.

Katherine M. Millett 4:25

Still jurisdiction to take the appeal. Of course, one would expect — one would expect either the Court of Appeals judges or the State, which — both of which have every incentive to check on these things to raise the issue.