October Term 2024 · Docket 22-7466
Can a state bar federal review of a death penalty case based on procedural rules?
Richard Glossip argues Oklahoma’s procedural rules wrongly block federal review of his conviction. Oklahoma defends the state’s finality of its court decisions.
Verified source milestones
- — An official oral-argument transcript was verified.
- — An official oral-argument transcript was verified.
- — An official Court opinion 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
Seth Waxman argued Glossip’s conviction relied on one witness.
Seth Waxman claimed Oklahoma disclosed new evidence about the case.
Paul Clement argued Oklahoma’s Attorney General did not confess error lightly.
Paul Clement stated Oklahoma defends multiple capital convictions in other cases.
Read the official transcript for this argument · Official argument details
Sources used for this argument breakdown
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 10, lines 47-51 — Transcript, file page 10, lines 47-51
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 10, lines 55-15 — Transcript, file page 10, lines 55-15
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 11, lines 19-21 — Transcript, file page 11, lines 19-21
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 11, lines 25-27 — Transcript, file page 11, lines 25-27
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 11, lines 33-37 — Transcript, file page 11, lines 33-37
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 11, lines 41-9 — Transcript, file page 11, lines 41-9
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 111, lines 35-17 — Transcript, file page 111, lines 35-17
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 33, lines 41-43 — Transcript, file page 33, lines 41-43
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 11-21 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 11-21
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 23-17 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 23-17
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 19-29 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 19-29
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 33-35 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 33-35
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 68, lines 13-7 — Transcript, file page 68, lines 13-7
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 69, lines 29-35 — Transcript, file page 69, lines 29-35
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 69, lines 39-11 — Transcript, file page 69, lines 39-11
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 69, lines 9-27 — Transcript, file page 69, lines 9-27
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 19-35 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 19-35
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 71, lines 17-11 — Transcript, file page 71, lines 17-11
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 73, lines 13-19 — Transcript, file page 73, lines 13-19
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 73, lines 45-27 — Transcript, file page 73, lines 45-27
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 76, lines 45-21 — Transcript, file page 76, lines 45-21
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 77, lines 45-25 — Transcript, file page 77, lines 45-25
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 78, lines 49-7 — Transcript, file page 78, lines 49-7
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 79, lines 23-35 — Transcript, file page 79, lines 23-35
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 79, lines 51-53 — Transcript, file page 79, lines 51-53
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 79, lines 55-7 — Transcript, file page 79, lines 55-7
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 17-29 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 17-29
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 7-9 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 7-9
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 80, lines 11-43 — Transcript, file page 80, lines 11-43
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 9, lines 29-49 — Transcript, file page 9, lines 29-49
A citizen's guide to the whole case
What this case is about
This case tests whether state procedural rules can block federal habeas review. Glossip claims his conviction rests on a single witness. Oklahoma argues its courts already reviewed the case six times.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 111, lines 35-17 — Transcript, file page 111, lines 35-17
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 33, lines 41-43 — Transcript, file page 33, lines 41-43
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 23-17 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 23-17
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 69, lines 9-27 — Transcript, file page 69, lines 9-27
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 71, lines 17-11 — Transcript, file page 71, lines 17-11
How the case got here
The Supreme Court heard oral argument in this case on October 9, 2024.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 11-21 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 11-21
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 76, lines 45-21 — Transcript, file page 76, lines 45-21
What each side wants
Glossip wants the Court to allow federal review of his conviction.
Oklahoma wants the Court to uphold the state’s procedural bar.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 111, lines 35-17 — Transcript, file page 111, lines 35-17
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 33, lines 41-43 — Transcript, file page 33, lines 41-43
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 23-17 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 23-17
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 69, lines 9-27 — Transcript, file page 69, lines 9-27
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 71, lines 17-11 — Transcript, file page 71, lines 17-11
What each side says
Glossip argues the state’s procedural rule is an inadequate independent ground.
Oklahoma argues the state’s procedural rule is an adequate independent ground.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 111, lines 35-17 — Transcript, file page 111, lines 35-17
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 33, lines 41-43 — Transcript, file page 33, lines 41-43
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 23-17 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 23-17
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 69, lines 9-27 — Transcript, file page 69, lines 9-27
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 71, lines 17-11 — Transcript, file page 71, lines 17-11
What the justices asked
Justice Sotomayor asked if the state procedural rule is an adequate independent ground.
Justice Thomas asked why prosecutors were not interviewed about the case details.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 10, lines 47-51 — Transcript, file page 10, lines 47-51
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 10, lines 55-15 — Transcript, file page 10, lines 55-15
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 11, lines 19-21 — Transcript, file page 11, lines 19-21
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 11, lines 25-27 — Transcript, file page 11, lines 25-27
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 11, lines 33-37 — Transcript, file page 11, lines 33-37
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 11, lines 41-9 — Transcript, file page 11, lines 41-9
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 19-29 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 19-29
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 33-35 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 33-35
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 68, lines 13-7 — Transcript, file page 68, lines 13-7
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 69, lines 29-35 — Transcript, file page 69, lines 29-35
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 69, lines 39-11 — Transcript, file page 69, lines 39-11
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 19-35 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 19-35
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 73, lines 13-19 — Transcript, file page 73, lines 13-19
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 73, lines 45-27 — Transcript, file page 73, lines 45-27
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 76, lines 45-21 — Transcript, file page 76, lines 45-21
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 77, lines 45-25 — Transcript, file page 77, lines 45-25
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 78, lines 49-7 — Transcript, file page 78, lines 49-7
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 79, lines 23-35 — Transcript, file page 79, lines 23-35
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 79, lines 51-53 — Transcript, file page 79, lines 51-53
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 79, lines 55-7 — Transcript, file page 79, lines 55-7
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 17-29 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 17-29
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 7-9 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 7-9
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 80, lines 11-43 — Transcript, file page 80, lines 11-43
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 9, lines 29-49 — Transcript, file page 9, lines 29-49
Why it matters
This dispute determines whether federal courts can review state death penalty convictions. It affects the balance between state finality and federal oversight of capital cases.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 111, lines 35-17 — Transcript, file page 111, lines 35-17
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 33, lines 41-43 — Transcript, file page 33, lines 41-43
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 23-17 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 23-17
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 69, lines 9-27 — Transcript, file page 69, lines 9-27
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 71, lines 17-11 — Transcript, file page 71, lines 17-11
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 10, lines 47-51 — Transcript, file page 10, lines 47-51
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 10, lines 55-15 — Transcript, file page 10, lines 55-15
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 11, lines 19-21 — Transcript, file page 11, lines 19-21
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 11, lines 25-27 — Transcript, file page 11, lines 25-27
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 11, lines 33-37 — Transcript, file page 11, lines 33-37
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 11, lines 41-9 — Transcript, file page 11, lines 41-9
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 11-21 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 11-21
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 19-29 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 19-29
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 33-35 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 33-35
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 68, lines 13-7 — Transcript, file page 68, lines 13-7
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 69, lines 29-35 — Transcript, file page 69, lines 29-35
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 69, lines 39-11 — Transcript, file page 69, lines 39-11
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 19-35 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 19-35
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 73, lines 13-19 — Transcript, file page 73, lines 13-19
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 73, lines 45-27 — Transcript, file page 73, lines 45-27
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 76, lines 45-21 — Transcript, file page 76, lines 45-21
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 77, lines 45-25 — Transcript, file page 77, lines 45-25
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 78, lines 49-7 — Transcript, file page 78, lines 49-7
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 79, lines 23-35 — Transcript, file page 79, lines 23-35
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 79, lines 51-53 — Transcript, file page 79, lines 51-53
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 79, lines 55-7 — Transcript, file page 79, lines 55-7
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 17-29 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 17-29
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 7-9 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 7-9
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 80, lines 11-43 — Transcript, file page 80, lines 11-43
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 9, lines 29-49 — Transcript, file page 9, lines 29-49
Official Court provenance
Official docket and case history · Official Supreme Court oral-argument detail page
Verified official opinions and orders
Title and summary sources
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 111, lines 35-17 — Transcript, file page 111, lines 35-17
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 33, lines 41-43 — Transcript, file page 33, lines 41-43
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 23-17 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 23-17
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 69, lines 9-27 — Transcript, file page 69, lines 9-27
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 71, lines 17-11 — Transcript, file page 71, lines 17-11
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 111, lines 35-17 — Transcript, file page 111, lines 35-17
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 33, lines 41-43 — Transcript, file page 33, lines 41-43
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 23-17 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 23-17
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 69, lines 9-27 — Transcript, file page 69, lines 9-27
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 71, lines 17-11 — Transcript, file page 71, lines 17-11
Revision history
- Revision 1 · Post Opinion ·
Correction: Rewritten to the concise citizen-facing editorial standard.
- Revision 2 · Post Opinion ·
Correction: Migrated to the dated official Court activity contract without model use.