This educational guide is based on the linked primary sources. It is not a Court publication, is not affiliated with the Court, and is not legal advice.
In brief
Overview
The case concerns whether a state‑court motion to reduce a sentence is considered a post‑conviction or other collateral review for purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(2).
Background and question before the Court
According to Aaron L. Weisman, petitioner asks whether a sentence‑reduction motion filed before a conviction becomes final qualifies as an “application for post‑conviction or other collateral review” under the federal statute.
The Court is questioning how the phrase “post‑conviction or other collateral review” should be interpreted, including whether it covers pre‑conviction motions.
What each side argues
Petitioner
Source-limited. The record does not yet support a complete account.
Respondent
Source-limited. The record does not yet support a complete account.
What happened at oral argument
According to Chief Justice Roberts, chief Justice Roberts opened the argument by announcing the case.
According to Aaron L. Weisman, weisman argued that the issue is whether the motion qualifies as an application for post‑conviction or other collateral review.
According to Aaron L. Weisman, weisman noted that such a motion can be filed within 120 days of sentencing or after affirmation on direct appeal.
Justice Ginsburg asked whether the phrase includes post‑conviction or other collateral review and noted that a Rule 35 motion is post‑conviction.
Justice Sotomayor asked whether Rule 35 would permit a federal challenge and whether the “magic words” of an illegal sentence were “illegal sentence” or “abuse of”.
According to Justice Scalia, justice Scalia expressed confusion about the phrase, suggesting it may include both post‑conviction and pre‑conviction collateral review.
MR. WEISMAN argued that a Rule 35 motion is not collateral review because it does not occur after the judgment becomes final.
According to Amicus brief, an amicus brief noted that judges often keep Rule 35 motions pending for extended periods to retain the ability to modify the sentence later.
Ms. Mizner testified that a motion to correct an illegal sentence can be filed at any time and that a sentence becomes final when it is imposed.
Justice Alito raised a hypothetical about a sentencing judge exceeding the statutory maximum and asked whether a “collateral attack” is defined as an attack on a judgment outside the proceeding that produced it.
Justice Kagan asked whether a petition for clemency presented to the governor would toll the limitations period.
According to Justice Sotomayor, justice Sotomayor questioned how a Rhode Island court’s limitation that challenges to an illegal sentence must be brought via Rule 35 affects the finality of the conviction’s affirmation.
- [1] 4d8f4bb2dde93535b226-r1-f56255e24aa1d3ad.pdf, p. 3
- [2] 4d8f4bb2dde93535b226-r1-f56255e24aa1d3ad.pdf, p. 3
- [3] 4d8f4bb2dde93535b226-r1-f56255e24aa1d3ad.pdf, p. 5
- [4] 4d8f4bb2dde93535b226-r1-f56255e24aa1d3ad.pdf, p. 4
- [5] 4d8f4bb2dde93535b226-r1-f56255e24aa1d3ad.pdf, p. 6
- [6] 4d8f4bb2dde93535b226-r1-f56255e24aa1d3ad.pdf, p. 21
- [7] 4d8f4bb2dde93535b226-r1-f56255e24aa1d3ad.pdf, p. 8
- [8] 4d8f4bb2dde93535b226-r1-f56255e24aa1d3ad.pdf, p. 23
- [9] 4d8f4bb2dde93535b226-r1-f56255e24aa1d3ad.pdf, p. 37
- [10] 4d8f4bb2dde93535b226-r1-f56255e24aa1d3ad.pdf, p. 40
- [11] 4d8f4bb2dde93535b226-r1-f56255e24aa1d3ad.pdf, p. 52
- [12] 4d8f4bb2dde93535b226-r1-f56255e24aa1d3ad.pdf, p. 44
- [13] 4d8f4bb2dde93535b226-r1-f56255e24aa1d3ad.pdf, p. 45
- [14] 4d8f4bb2dde93535b226-r1-f56255e24aa1d3ad.pdf, p. 48
- [15] 4d8f4bb2dde93535b226-r1-f56255e24aa1d3ad.pdf, p. 57
What the Court decided
Why it matters
Terms to know
No glossary terms are available for this guide.
Primary sources
Read the source materials on the official site or open the immutable repository copy used for this guide.
- 4d8f4bb2dde93535b226-r1-f56255e24aa1d3ad.pdforal argument transcript
Guide generated September 24, 2026. Automated validation accepted this version.