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 Supreme Court granted certiorari to review the district court's order directing the State to transport prisoner Twyford to a medical facility.
Justice Gorsuch dissented, stating he would not reach the merits of the petition.
The Supreme Court held that the district court erred in ordering Twyford's transport.
Background and question before the Court
The district court entered an order directing the State to transport Twyford to a medical facility to aid its adjudication of his habeas petition.
The Court granted review to decide whether and under what circumstances a federal district court may order a State to transport a prisoner to a hospital for testing.
In certain rare circumstances, a federal court may order a state prisoner transported under the All Writs Act.
What each side argues
Petitioner (Benjamin M. Flowers)
According to Petitioner (Benjamin M. Flowers), according to Petitioner (Benjamin M. Flowers), justice Jackson warned against giving the convict population new and unprecedented opportunities to litigate until they serve their sentences.
According to Petitioner, section 18 U.S.C. § 3599 entitles death‑row inmates to expert investigative services where reasonably necessary.
According to Petitioner, the district court has authority under the All Writs Act to issue the transport order.
United States
According to United States, the United States agrees that the warden has jurisdiction and that the transport order resolves the disputed question of transport.
Respondent
The respondent argues that orders requiring a state warden to transport a prisoner would be immediately appealable.
State
The State argues the Court should not create a new category of appealable transportation orders.
The State notes it did not argue public safety and that the inmate’s prior transports caused no incidents despite his age and blindness.
What happened at oral argument
Justice Thomas asked how to determine if the writ is agreeable to the usages and principles of law without a common‑law analogue.
According to Justice Thomas, justice Thomas questioned the lack of a limiting principle in the Court’s approach.
Justice Sotomayor asked if the issue had been presented to the lower court.
Justice Alito asked whether a vague request for testing is sufficient.
What the Court decided
Justice Gorsuch dissented, stating he would not reach the merits of the petition.
The Supreme Court held that the district court erred in ordering Twyford's transport.
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.
- 12843ad919c8b39da1be-r1-8efa05321ad41a05.pdfopinion
- 91b751d81bc54d4bc4a5-r1-14614e2953d71448.pdforal argument transcript
Guide generated September 29, 2026. Automated validation accepted this version.