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
According to Petitioner, the case concerns whether the AEDPA tolling rule applies to a prisoner seeking to file a protective habeas petition based on new evidence.
The petitioner argues that filing a protective habeas petition puts the State on notice and allows it to investigate the new evidence.
The court indicated that the case was remanded to the district court to determine whether the petitioner has evidence of actual innocence.
Background and question before the Court
Justice Ginsburg asked whether delay can be considered a factor in deciding whether an actual‑innocence gateway plea should be heard.
According to Justice Alito, justice Alito questioned the district court’s finding that the petitioner lacked sufficient evidence of actual innocence.
Justice Kagan asked why the petitioner’s argument made sense.
Justice Sotomayor asked how many actual‑innocence claims succeed on the underlying constitutional issue.
Justice Alito asked whether the AEDPA limitations period is plausible given congressional intent.
Justice Alito asked why diligence should be required for a claim based on new evidence.
Justice Breyer asked whether tolling applies when a courthouse burns down.
Justice Breyer asked what “discovered in exercise of due diligence” means.
- [1] 918c1ce81b682bcadb5a-r1-3a3ffda61a2fb2e2.pdf, p. 4
- [2] 918c1ce81b682bcadb5a-r1-3a3ffda61a2fb2e2.pdf, p. 8
- [3] 918c1ce81b682bcadb5a-r1-3a3ffda61a2fb2e2.pdf, p. 21
- [4] 918c1ce81b682bcadb5a-r1-3a3ffda61a2fb2e2.pdf, p. 26
- [5] 918c1ce81b682bcadb5a-r1-3a3ffda61a2fb2e2.pdf, p. 38
- [6] 918c1ce81b682bcadb5a-r1-3a3ffda61a2fb2e2.pdf, p. 43
- [7] 918c1ce81b682bcadb5a-r1-3a3ffda61a2fb2e2.pdf, p. 46
- [8] 918c1ce81b682bcadb5a-r1-3a3ffda61a2fb2e2.pdf, p. 64
What each side argues
Petitioner (Greg McQuiggin, Warden)
According to Petitioner, aEDPA contains a tolling rule for prisoners seeking to gather new evidence.
According to Petitioner, the petitioner must act quickly because adverse consequences can occur if he does not.
If the petitioner is close to the end of his one‑year period, he can file a protective habeas petition, ask for a stay, and continue pursuing a new affidavit.
According to Petitioner, filing a protective habeas petition puts the State on notice and gives it an opportunity to investigate the new evidence.
According to Petitioner, the petitioner urges the Court to address a circuit split on whether the limitations period applies.
According to Petitioner, there are three categories of prisoners who claim actual innocence based on new evidence.
According to John J. Bursch, the State’s interest in timeliness is strongest when new evidence relates to the constitutional claim, and the petitioner seeks extraordinary tolling rather than equitable tolling.
According to John J. Bursch, legislative silence on equitable tolling indicates Congress intended the limitations period to apply to cases involving new evidence.
According to John J. Bursch, the successive‑petition provision adds an actual‑innocence gateway that is not available on a first petition.
- [1] 918c1ce81b682bcadb5a-r1-3a3ffda61a2fb2e2.pdf, p. 3
- [2] 918c1ce81b682bcadb5a-r1-3a3ffda61a2fb2e2.pdf, p. 5
- [3] 918c1ce81b682bcadb5a-r1-3a3ffda61a2fb2e2.pdf, p. 6
- [4] 918c1ce81b682bcadb5a-r1-3a3ffda61a2fb2e2.pdf, p. 7
- [5] 918c1ce81b682bcadb5a-r1-3a3ffda61a2fb2e2.pdf, p. 11
- [6] 918c1ce81b682bcadb5a-r1-3a3ffda61a2fb2e2.pdf, p. 12
- [7] 918c1ce81b682bcadb5a-r1-3a3ffda61a2fb2e2.pdf, p. 65
- [8] 918c1ce81b682bcadb5a-r1-3a3ffda61a2fb2e2.pdf, p. 60
- [9] 918c1ce81b682bcadb5a-r1-3a3ffda61a2fb2e2.pdf, p. 64
Respondent (Floyd Perkins)
Source-limited. The record does not yet support a complete account.
What happened at oral argument
Justice Ginsburg asked whether delay can be considered a factor in an actual‑innocence gateway plea.
According to Justice Alito, justice Alito questioned the district court’s finding that the petitioner lacked sufficient evidence of actual innocence.
Justice Kagan asked why the petitioner’s argument made sense.
Justice Sotomayor asked how many actual‑innocence claims succeed on the underlying constitutional issue.
Justice Alito asked whether the AEDPA limitations period is plausible given congressional intent.
Justice Alito asked why diligence should be required for a claim based on new evidence.
Justice Breyer asked whether tolling applies when a courthouse burns down.
Justice Breyer asked what “discovered in exercise of due diligence” means.
The petitioner argued that filing a protective habeas petition puts the State on notice and allows investigation of new evidence.
According to Petitioner, the petitioner raised a circuit split on whether the limitations period should apply.
- [1] 918c1ce81b682bcadb5a-r1-3a3ffda61a2fb2e2.pdf, p. 4
- [2] 918c1ce81b682bcadb5a-r1-3a3ffda61a2fb2e2.pdf, p. 8
- [3] 918c1ce81b682bcadb5a-r1-3a3ffda61a2fb2e2.pdf, p. 21
- [4] 918c1ce81b682bcadb5a-r1-3a3ffda61a2fb2e2.pdf, p. 26
- [5] 918c1ce81b682bcadb5a-r1-3a3ffda61a2fb2e2.pdf, p. 38
- [6] 918c1ce81b682bcadb5a-r1-3a3ffda61a2fb2e2.pdf, p. 43
- [7] 918c1ce81b682bcadb5a-r1-3a3ffda61a2fb2e2.pdf, p. 46
- [8] 918c1ce81b682bcadb5a-r1-3a3ffda61a2fb2e2.pdf, p. 64
- [9] 918c1ce81b682bcadb5a-r1-3a3ffda61a2fb2e2.pdf, p. 6
- [10] 918c1ce81b682bcadb5a-r1-3a3ffda61a2fb2e2.pdf, p. 7
- [11] 918c1ce81b682bcadb5a-r1-3a3ffda61a2fb2e2.pdf, p. 11
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.
- 918c1ce81b682bcadb5a-r1-3a3ffda61a2fb2e2.pdforal argument transcript
Guide generated September 24, 2026. Automated validation accepted this version.