October Term 2006 · Docket 05-595

Should new constitutional rules apply to old prison cases?

the sides that brought the case seek to block a new rule. the opposing sides demand its application.

Official caption
Whorton v. Bockting
Latest argument session
Latest official Court activity
Latest verified event
Argued
Sources analyzed through
Official Transcript

Verified source milestones

  1. — An official oral-argument transcript was verified.

The arguments, in order

This case may have been argued more than once. Each entry below uses that session's official transcript. Later arguments do not erase earlier ones.

  1. Argument 1 ·

    What happened at the argument

    the sides that brought the case claim the new rule does not meet strict standards.

    the opposing sides claim the new rule is a fundamental watershed change.

    Chief Justice Roberts questioned the relationship between the new rule and existing statutes.

    Justice Scalia emphasized the equitable nature of habeas corpus relief.

    Read the official transcript for this argument · Official argument details

    Sources used for this argument breakdown

A citizen's guide to the whole case

What this case is about

The case tests whether a new legal standard applies to old convictions.

Official sources for this section

How the case got here

The Supreme Court heard oral argument in this case on November 1, 2006.

Official sources for this section

What each side wants

the sides that brought the case want the new rule to stay out of old cases.

the opposing sides want the new rule to fix their conviction.

Official sources for this section

What each side says

the sides that brought the case argue the new rule fails strict retroactivity tests.

the opposing sides argue the new rule is a fundamental watershed change.

Official sources for this section

What the justices asked

Chief Justice Roberts asked if the new rule is contrary to established law.

Justice Scalia asked if habeas relief allows broad judicial discretion.

Official sources for this section

Why it matters

This dispute defines the reach of new constitutional rights in prison.

Official sources for this section

What happens next

This article currently covers the argument record. Use the official docket link for later case activity.

Official sources for this section

Official Court provenance

Official docket and case history · Official Supreme Court oral-argument detail page

Title and summary sources

Revision history

  1. Revision 1 · Official Transcript ·

    Correction: Rewritten to the concise citizen-facing editorial standard.

  2. Revision 2 · Official Transcript ·

    Correction: Migrated to the dated official Court activity contract without model use.

Download this sanitized case as JSON