Shoop v. Twyford (21-511)

argument 21-511

Shoop v. Twyford

Supreme Court of the United States 58 min 6 speakers 8 chapters transcribed 5 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 central legal issue presented in Shoop v. Twyford?

John G. Roberts 0:00

We will hear argument next in case twenty one five eleven, Shoop versus Twiford. General Flowers.

Unknown 0:11

Thank you, Mr. Chief Justice, and may it please the Court. Justice Jackson long ago warned against giving the convict population of the country new and unprecedented opportunities to litigate until they serve their sentences or make the best of increased opportunities to escape. The Sixth Circuit here blessed precisely the sort of opportunity he warned of. It held that when a federal statute prohibits ordering a prisoner's transportation with a writ of habeas corpus, courts may instead order transportation under the All Ritz Act. But courts have no such power. Every all writs order must be agreeable to the usages and principles of law, meaning the traditional writs as altered by statute. Transportation orders must be agreeable to habeas law, because habeas writs were the only traditional writs used for ordering the transportation of prisoners.

Unknown 0:54

So when a federal habeas statute prohibits ordering transportation with the writ of habeas corpus in a particular situation, courts may not evade that prohibition. by issuing a transportation order under the All RITs Act. But the order here was improper for a second reason regardless. Every All RITs Act order must be necessary or appropriate in aid of the issuing court's jurisdiction. The order here doesn't qualify because it evades the rules governing discovery in habeas cases and facilitates the development of evidence that no habeas court can even consider. All that leaves only the question whether the circuit had jurisdiction in this case, and it did. The warden satisfied all three elements of the collateral order doctrine.

Unknown 1:31

First, the order here is conclusive. Second, the question whether the All Rits Act empowers the Federal Court to interfere with the sovereign's management of its own prisons is both important and separate from the merits. And finally, the state cannot states cannot meaningfully protect themselves from transportation orders. unless they're allowed to appeal immediately. Regardless, the warden moved in the alternative for mandamus relief. If the court thinks the collateral order doctrine doesn't apply, it should remand with its instructions to issue a writ of mandamus, correcting the district court's egregiously wrong and dangerous decision. I welcome your questions.

Clarence Thomas 2:06

Uh just one question, General. Uh Why should we consider uh this transportation order uh a writ of habeas corpus?

Unknown 2:15

Well I th I think uh there are actually two answers to that. One is you may not, because under the All Writs Act, they need to find a ri uh some traditional writ to which this is analogous. We candidly don't think there is one, but the best they can possibly do in finding an analogue is a habeas writ.

Clarence Thomas 2:30

So what do you think it is?

Unknown 2:32

Uh uh we don't we think it's not analogous to any historical writ, it's an ad hoc writ that the court had no authority.

Clarence Thomas 2:37

No, I mean how would you care I'm sorry, how would you characterize it for the purpose of uh deciding this case?

Unknown 2:44

We would say that uh because the closest analog, albeit a bad one, is habeas law, the order here was a writ in the nature of habeas corpus and therefore had to be consistent with statutes like 2241 C. And it was not consistent with that because as Judge Easterbrook explained in his opinion for the court in Ivy in the Seventh Circuit, uh twenty two forty one C prohibits Ritzophabeus corpus except in very s'mor Oh except in sp specified situations. And C five is the only one dealing with transportation. It deals with rits of habeas corpus ad testificandum and ad prosequendum. This is neither of those and therefore falls outside C five and is impermissible. Thank you.

Elena Kagan 3:25

Counsel, I don't want to leave the collat whether this is a appealable collateral order. It is conclusive under Mohawk, but we said there that the collateral appealable orders are a narrow and selective class. They have to be final. They can't be reviewed. odd appeal. But If the district court ultimately grants respondents habeas petition, you can challenge the medical transport order.