Felker v. Turpin
United States Supreme Court
518 U.S. 651 (1996)
- Written by Jamie Milne, JD
Facts
Ellis Felker (defendant) was convicted and sentenced to death in state court. Felker subsequently filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in federal district court to challenge the legality of his death sentence. The district court denied the petition, the court of appeals affirmed, and the Supreme Court denied certiorari. Shortly before Felker’s scheduled execution, the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (the act) was signed into law. Under the act, if a person previously filed a petition for habeas relief, the person was required to obtain leave from a court of appeals before filing another habeas petition in district court. Further, the act stated that the court of appeals’ decision was not subject to review by the Supreme Court. As his scheduled execution date approached, Felker sought leave to file a second habeas petition. The court of appeals denied leave, concluding that the claims underlying the second petition did not meet the act’s requirements. Felker then filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in the Supreme Court, attempting to invoke the Court’s original jurisdiction, and also a petition for a writ of certiorari from the Court to review the court of appeals’ denial of leave.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Rehnquist, C.J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 787,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,200 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.
