Joseph v. United States
135 S. Ct. 705
| SCOTUS | 2014Background
- Patrick Joseph appealed his convictions and sentencing as a career offender under the Sentencing Guidelines to the Eleventh Circuit.
- When Joseph filed his opening brief, Eleventh Circuit precedent foreclosed his challenge to career-offender classification (United States v. Rainer).
- After Joseph filed, the Supreme Court decided Descamps v. United States, undermining that Eleventh Circuit precedent and creating a new basis for Joseph’s claim.
- Joseph moved to file a replacement opening brief invoking Descamps nine days before the government’s brief was due; the government did not oppose but requested more time.
- The Eleventh Circuit refused to accept the substitute brief based on its rule that issues not raised in the opening brief are forfeited; other circuits routinely accept such supplemental or substitute briefs when a new Supreme Court decision intervenes.
- Justice Kagan (joined by Justices Ginsburg and Breyer) filed a statement respecting the denial of certiorari, explaining concerns about the Eleventh Circuit’s application of its forfeiture rule and urging deference for now to the Eleventh Circuit to resolve intra-circuit practice.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Eleventh Circuit permissibly refused a substitute brief that raised a new claim based on an intervening Supreme Court decision | Joseph: intervening Supreme Court decision (Descamps) created a new, timely claim; substitute brief should be allowed | Eleventh Circuit: its rule treats issues not in the opening brief as forfeited and cannot be entertained | Cert denied; Court declined review but statement criticized Eleventh Circuit practice and suggested it may be unreasonable |
| Whether the forfeiture rule should bar claims that became viable only after filing the opening brief | Joseph: lack of clairvoyance—not lack of diligence—so forfeiture is inappropriate for intervening decisions | Eleventh Circuit: uniform application of its rule promotes notice and judicial efficiency | Statement noted other circuits accept such claims and that strict application here is anomalous and potentially unfair |
| Whether intra-circuit inconsistency in applying the rule is permissible | Joseph: inconsistent treatment (sometimes Eleventh Circuit has considered Descamps claims) is arbitrary | Eleventh Circuit: asserted rule applies uniformly; in practice has been applied unevenly | Statement highlighted the Eleventh Circuit’s own inconsistent practice and the unfairness of disparate treatment |
| Whether appellate procedural rules must be a reasoned exercise of judicial authority | Joseph: applying forfeiture here is not a reasoned exercise given intervening precedent and other circuits’ practice | Eleventh Circuit: procedural rule within its managerial discretion | Statement emphasized that procedural rules must represent a reasoned exercise and suggested the Eleventh Circuit should reconsider its practice, but declined certiorari |
Key Cases Cited
- Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (procedural rules of courts of appeals must yield to constitutional and statutory requirements)
- Ortega-Rodriguez v. United States, 507 U.S. 234 (courts’ procedural rules must be a reasoned exercise of authority)
- Griffith v. Kentucky, 479 U.S. 314 (new rules apply retroactively to cases pending on direct review)
- Descamps v. United States, 570 U.S. 254 (2013) (clarified categorical approach to prior convictions and affected career-offender analysis)
- United States v. Rainer, 616 F.3d 1212 (11th Cir.) (Eleventh Circuit precedent that initially foreclosed Joseph’s challenge)
- United States v. Vanorden, 414 F.3d 1321 (11th Cir.) (noting Eleventh Circuit forfeiture rule is inconsistent with other circuits)