Florida v. Rigterink, 559 U.S. 965

Florida v. Rigterink

559 U.S. 965

SCOTUS

2010

Check Treatment

Florida, Petitioner v. Thomas William Rigterink

No. 08-1229

Supreme Court of the United States

March 1, 2010

559 U.S. 965, 130 S. Ct. 1235, 176 L. Ed. 2d 175, 2010 U.S. LEXIS 1804

March 1, 2010. On petition for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of Florida. Motion of respondent for leave to proceed in forma pauperis granted. Petition for writ of certiorari granted. Judgment vacated, and case remanded to the Supreme Court of Florida for further consideration in light of Florida v. Powell, 559 U.S. 50, 130 S. Ct. 1195, 175 L. Ed. 2d 1009 (2010).

Same case below, 2 So. 3d 221.

Justice Stevens, dissenting.

In my view, the judgment below rested upon an adequate and independent state ground, and the Court therefore lacks jurisdiction over this case. See Florida v. Powell, ante, at 65-71, 130 S. Ct. 1195, 175 L. Ed. 2d 1009 (Stevens, J., dissenting). Indeed, the independence of the state-law ground in this case is even clearer than in Powell because the Florida Supreme Court expressly acknowledged its obligation “‘to give independent legal import to every phrase and clause contained‘” in the State Constitution, 2 So. 3d 221, 241 (2009) (quoting Traylor v. State, 596 So. 2d 957, 962 (Fla. 1992)), and stated that “the federal Constitution sets the floor, not the ceiling, and this Court retains the ability to interpret the right against self-incrimination afforded by the Florida Constitution more broadly than that afforded by its federal counterpart,” 2 So. 3d, at 241. Because the independence of the state-law ground is “clear from the face of the opinion,” Michigan v. Long, 463 U.S. 1032, 1041, 103 S. Ct. 3469, 77 L. Ed. 2d 1201 (1983), we do not have power to vacate the judgment of the Florida Supreme Court.

I therefore respectfully dissent.

Wilson John Machado and Jorema Cabrera Arellano, Petitioners v. Eric H. Holder, Jr., Attorney General

No. 08-7721

Supreme Court of the United States

March 1, 2010

559 U.S. 966, 130 S. Ct. 1236, 176 L. Ed. 2d 175, 2010 U.S. LEXIS 1903

March 1, 2010. On petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. Motion of petitioners for leave to proceed in forma pauperis and petition for writ of certiorari granted. Judgment vacated, and case remanded to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit for further consideration in light of the position asserted by the Solicitor General in her brief for the respondent filed August 26, 2009.

Same case below, 293 Fed. Appx. 217.

Chief Justice Roberts, with whom Justice Scalia, Justice Thomas, and Justice Alito join, dissenting.

I dissent from the Court‘s decision to grant the petition, vacate the judgment, and remand the case. The Court does this in deference to the Government‘s suggestion that the Court of Appeals ignored petitioners’ nonconstitutional claim of ineffective assistance of counsel. The Government does not, however, take the position that the judgment reached by the Court of Appeals was incorrect, and this Court has not independently examined the merits of that judgment. In such circumstances, there are insufficient grounds for vacating the judgment below. See Nunez v. United States, 554 U.S. 911, 912, 128 S. Ct. 2990, 171 L. Ed. 2d 879 (2008) (Scalia, J., dissenting).