Lots of little items for criminal justice fans in OT24 wrap-up order list from SCOTUS

The Surpeme Court released this lengthy order list this morning, and there are a number of items throughout the 32-page list that will be of interest to criminal law fans.  For starters, we get a few GVRs based on the recently decided cases of Hewitt and Esteras, as well as one based on Gutierrez that Justice Thomas disagreed with.  Then, the Court granted cert on seven new cases, one of which involves the federal sentencing law, Rico v. US, regarding “whether the fugitivetolling doctrine applies in the context of supervised release.”

In addition, the order list include a unanimous per curiam opinion in Goldey v. Fields, No. 24–809 (S. Ct. June 30, 2024) (also available here), which involves an effort by a federal prisoner to sue federal prison officials for an Eighth Amendment violation alleging use of excessive force.  The Court rules a Bivens suit is not available in a three-page opinion that concludes this way: 

This case arises in a new context, and “special factors” counsel against recognizing an implied Bivens cause of action for Eighth Amendment excessive-force violations. To begin with, Congress has actively legislated in the area of prisoner litigation but has not enacted a statutory cause of action for money damages. See Ziglar, 582 U. S., at 148– 149. In addition, extending Bivens to allow an Eighth Amendment claim for excessive force could have negative systemic consequences for prison officials and the “inordinately difficult undertaking” of running a prison. Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78, 84–85 (1987).  Moreover, “an alternative remedial structure” already exists for aggrieved federal prisoners. Ziglar, 582 U.S., at 137; see Correctional Services Corp. v. Malesko, 534 U. S. 61, 74 (2001). The existence of such alternative remedial procedures counsels against allowing Bivens suits even if such “procedures are ‘not as effective as an individual damages remedy.’” Egbert, 596 U.S., at 498.

For the past 45 years, this Court has consistently declined to extend Bivens to new contexts. See Egbert, 596 U.S., at 490–491. We do the same here.

Last but certainly not least, Justice Sotomayor has statements regarding the denial of cert in two cases. The first statement, in Wiggins v. US, is quite short and is joined by Justice Barrett. It highlights the “split among the Courts of Appeals over the proper definition of a ‘controlled substance offense’ under §4B1.2(b) of the Federal Sentencing Guidelines.” This Wiggins statement concludes with this sentence: “If the Commission does not intend to resolve the split, it should provide an explanation so that this Court can decide whether to address the issue and restore uniformity.” The second statement, in Black v. Tennessee, is lengthy and is written “to highlight the constitutional flaws in Tennessee’s approach to manslaughter instructions, and to encourage the Tennessee Supreme Court to resolve them in the first instance.”