October Term 2007 · Docket 06-8273
Can states ignore federal retroactivity rules for new constitutional rights?
the side that brought the case argues federal law controls retroactivity. the opposing side claims state courts decide which prisoners gain access to new rights.
Verified source milestones
- — 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.
Argument 1 ·
What happened at the argument
Mr. Butler argued the Minnesota Supreme Court incorrectly claimed federal law prevented it from deciding prisoner access.
Mr. Diamond asserted federal law controls the retroactivity of new constitutional rulings.
Justice Roberts noted Teague exceptions depend on the nature of the underlying right.
Read the official transcript for this argument · Official argument details
Sources used for this argument breakdown
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 17-45 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 17-45
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 47-3 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 47-3
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 7-15 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 7-15
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 30, lines 7-15 — Transcript, file page 30, lines 7-15
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 19-23 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 19-23
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 39-51 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 39-51
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 37-41 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 37-41
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 45-5 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 45-5
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 5-11 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 5-11
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 15-25 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 15-25
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 39-9 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 39-9
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 27-45 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 27-45
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 23-23 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 23-23
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 27-43 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 27-43
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 9, lines 23-49 — Transcript, file page 9, lines 23-49
A citizen's guide to the whole case
What this case is about
This case tests whether federal law dictates when new constitutional rules apply to old convictions. the side that brought the case seeks uniform national standards. the opposing side defends state autonomy in applying these rules.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 17-45 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 17-45
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 30, lines 7-15 — Transcript, file page 30, lines 7-15
How the case got here
The Supreme Court heard oral argument in this case on October 31, 2007.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 7-15 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 7-15
What each side wants
the side that brought the case wants the Court to mandate federal retroactivity rules for all states.
the opposing side wants the Court to allow states to set their own retroactivity standards.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 17-45 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 17-45
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 30, lines 7-15 — Transcript, file page 30, lines 7-15
What each side says
the side that brought the case argues federal law exclusively controls the retroactivity of new constitutional rulings.
the opposing side argues state courts must decide which prisoners can raise federal challenges.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 17-45 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 17-45
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 30, lines 7-15 — Transcript, file page 30, lines 7-15
What the justices asked
Justice Scalia asked if determining non-retroactivity is a substantive federal law decision.
Justice Kennedy questioned if state courts are reaching questions federal law forbids.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 47-3 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 47-3
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 19-23 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 19-23
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 39-51 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 39-51
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 37-41 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 37-41
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 45-5 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 45-5
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 5-11 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 5-11
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 15-25 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 15-25
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 39-9 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 39-9
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 27-45 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 27-45
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 23-23 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 23-23
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 27-43 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 27-43
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 9, lines 23-49 — Transcript, file page 9, lines 23-49
Why it matters
This dispute defines the balance between federal uniformity and state judicial power. It determines whether prisoners nationwide receive identical access to new constitutional protections. The outcome shapes the finality of criminal convictions across the country.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 17-45 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 17-45
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 30, lines 7-15 — Transcript, file page 30, lines 7-15
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 Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 47-3 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 47-3
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 7-15 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 7-15
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 19-23 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 19-23
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 39-51 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 39-51
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 37-41 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 37-41
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 45-5 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 45-5
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 5-11 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 5-11
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 15-25 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 15-25
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 39-9 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 39-9
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 27-45 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 27-45
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 23-23 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 23-23
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 27-43 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 27-43
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 9, lines 23-49 — Transcript, file page 9, lines 23-49
Official Court provenance
Official docket and case history · Official Supreme Court oral-argument detail page
Title and summary sources
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 17-45 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 17-45
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 30, lines 7-15 — Transcript, file page 30, lines 7-15
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 17-45 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 17-45
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 30, lines 7-15 — Transcript, file page 30, lines 7-15
Revision history
- Revision 1 · Official Transcript ·
Correction: Rewritten to the concise citizen-facing editorial standard.
- Revision 2 · Official Transcript ·
Correction: Migrated to the dated official Court activity contract without model use.