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
Petitioner argued that the Ninth Circuit's decision created new state action.
According to Petitioner, petitioner challenged the existing aggravators in the case.
The Court indicated it could dismiss the case as improvidently granted.
Background and question before the Court
Justice Kavanaugh asked whether the Clemons precedent, which allows appellate courts to reweigh, is still good law.
According to Justice Gorsuch, justice Gorsuch questioned whether states define their own procedures.
Chief Justice Roberts asked if there is a difference between a correctable surgical mistake and a comprehensive mistake that infects the whole proceeding.
Justice Kavanaugh later asked about Justice Blackmun's dissent.
What each side argues
Petitioner Position
Petitioner argued that the Ninth Circuit's decision created new state action.
According to Petitioner, petitioner challenged the existing aggravators in the case.
According to Petitioner, petitioner submitted a rebuttal argument on behalf of Neal K. Katyal.
Respondent Position
Source-limited. The record does not yet support a complete account.
What happened at oral argument
Oral argument began at 11:11 a.m.
Justice Kavanaugh asked whether the Clemons precedent is still good law.
According to Justice Gorsuch, justice Gorsuch questioned whether states define their own procedures.
Chief Justice Roberts asked if there is a difference between a surgical mistake that can be corrected and a comprehensive mistake that infects the whole proceeding.
Justice Kavanaugh later asked about Justice Blackmun's dissent.
According to Chief Justice Roberts, chief Justice Roberts noted the case was submitted at 12:11 p.m.
- [1] a70e02a5f8c623d9ba6c-r1-e93fa9e20780322b.pdf, p. 2
- [2] a70e02a5f8c623d9ba6c-r1-e93fa9e20780322b.pdf, p. 6
- [3] a70e02a5f8c623d9ba6c-r1-e93fa9e20780322b.pdf, p. 24
- [4] a70e02a5f8c623d9ba6c-r1-e93fa9e20780322b.pdf, p. 30
- [5] a70e02a5f8c623d9ba6c-r1-e93fa9e20780322b.pdf, p. 66
- [6] a70e02a5f8c623d9ba6c-r1-e93fa9e20780322b.pdf, p. 69
What the Court decided
Why it matters
According to Petitioner, the case raises questions about whether a circuit court's decision can create new state action, a significant issue for state sovereignty.
The Court's consideration of dismissing the case as improvidently granted highlights the importance of procedural propriety in Supreme Court review.
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.
- a70e02a5f8c623d9ba6c-r1-e93fa9e20780322b.pdforal argument transcript
Guide generated September 26, 2026. Automated validation accepted this version.