Stevens blasts denial in case of ‘60s hate killing
Usually when the U.S. Supreme Court declines to take up an appeal, that fact is noted only in a single line on an orders list.
But more frequently, justices who disagree with the Court’s decision to pass on a case are taking the unusual step of writing dissenting opinions expressing their displeasure.
Yesterday, as he has on other occasions recently, it was Justice John Paul Stevens who made his objection known.
At issue in the case U.S. v. Seale is whether too much time has passed since the 1964 brutal killing of two black teenagers along the Mississippi-Louisiana border and the 2007 arrest of a former Ku Klux Klan member for the kidnapping and conspiracy. The federal statute at issue has no statute of limitations for the crime of kidnapping when it results in death.
The 5th Circuit, after slipping evenly on the question, certified the question to the Supreme Court.
When the High Court dismissed the certificate Stevens, joined by Justice Antonin Scalia, put his thoughts on paper.
“This certificate presents us with a pure question of law that may well determine the outcome of a number of cases of ugly racial violence remaining from the 1960s,” Stevens wrote.
Stevens noted that the Court could have settled not only this case, but potentially others like it.
“I see no benefit and significant cost to postponing the question’s resolution,” Stevens wrote. “A prompt answer from this Court will expedite the termination of this litigation and determine whether other similar cases may be prosecuted. In these unusual circumstances, certification can serve the interests not only of legal clarity but also of prosecutorial economy and ‘the proper administration and expedition of judicial business.’”
Stevens acknowledged that it is rare for a lower appellate court to put a question to the Supreme Court, and the Court rarely takes them. But, he wrote, “[w]e ought to avail ourselves of it in an appropriate case. In my judgment, this case should be briefed and set for argument.”
More on the case here.
