From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Irons v. Carey

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit
May 18, 2005
408 F.3d 1165 (9th Cir. 2005)

Summary

ordering parties to file briefs on the constitutionality of § 2254(d)

Summary of this case from Davis v. Straub

Opinion

No. 05-15275.

May 18, 2005.

Ann C. McClintock, Esq., FPDCA-Federal Public Defender's Office (Sacramento), Sacramento, CA, for Petitioner-Appellee.

Patrick J. Whalen, Esq., Pamela B. Hooley, AGCA-Office of the California Attorney General (Sac), Department of Justice, Sacramento, CA, for Respondent-Appellant.

Before REINHARDT, NOONAN, and FERNANDEZ, Circuit Judges.


ORDER

The parties are ordered to file supplemental briefs, not to exceed 25 pages, within 28 days from the date of this order. The supplemental briefs shall discuss the constitutionality of the standards that Congress has set forth in the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 ("AEDPA"), 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1). Specifically, the parties should discuss, in light of Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 137, 2 L.Ed. 60 (1803), and City of Boerne v. Flores, 521 U.S. 507, 536, 117 S.Ct. 2157, 138 L.Ed.2d 624 (1997), whether AEDPA unconstitutionally prescribes the sources of law that the Judicial Branch must use in exercising its jurisdiction or unconstitutionally prescribes the substantive rules of decision by which the federal courts must decide constitutional questions that arise in state habeas cases. The parties should consider whether, under the separation of powers doctrine or for any other reason involving the constitutionality of 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1), this court should decline to apply the AEDPA standards in this case.

This court also certifies the above question to the Attorney General of the United States pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2403(a). The Attorney General is permitted to intervene and file a brief, not to exceed 25 pages, within 28 days from the date of this order. If the panel determines that further oral argument would be of assistance, it will schedule such argument and inform the parties, the Attorney General, and any amici at that time. This court also invites interested parties to request leave, within 14 days from the day of this order, to file amicus curiae briefs. Should leave be granted, such parties shall have 21 days from the date thereof to file briefs of not more than 20 pages.

Judge FERNANDEZ does not join in this order.


Summaries of

Irons v. Carey

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit
May 18, 2005
408 F.3d 1165 (9th Cir. 2005)

ordering parties to file briefs on the constitutionality of § 2254(d)

Summary of this case from Davis v. Straub

ordering parties to submit supplemental briefs discussing "whether AEDPA unconstitutionally prescribes the sources of law that the Judicial Branch must use in exercising its jurisdiction"

Summary of this case from Gladney v. Marshall

ordering parties to submit supplemental briefs discussing "whether AEDPA unconstitutionally prescribes the sources of law that the Judicial Branch must use in exercising its jurisdiction"

Summary of this case from Castle v. Woodford
Case details for

Irons v. Carey

Case Details

Full title:Carl Merton IRONS, II, Petitioner-Appellee, v. Tom L. CAREY, Warden…

Court:United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit

Date published: May 18, 2005

Citations

408 F.3d 1165 (9th Cir. 2005)

Citing Cases

Van Adams v. Schriro

Petitioner cites no authority for his separation of powers challenge to the AEDPA, beyond an order from a…

Rosenkrantz v. Marshall

Petitioner's liberty interest should not be determined by such an arbitrary, remote possibility.Irons v.…