Early (mostly critical) commentary on Jones v. Hendrix

Because I had the honor of spending my afternoon on Capitol Hill, I have not yet had a chance to read closely the Supreme Court’s important new ruling on federal collateral review in Jones v. Hendrix (basics here).  But a number of folks have apparently had time not only to review Jones, but also write up some commentary (including some in comments to this blog).  Here is a round-up of some of the early commentary I have already seen: 

From Chris Williams at Above the Law, “Sullcrom Is Super Proud Of Themselves For Making It Easier For The State To Confine The Innocent: I hope Jones takes some solace in knowing that he may actually be one of the innocent ones.”

From Kent Scheidegger at Crime & Consequence, “Major Victory for Finality of Judgments“

From Leah Litman at Slate, “Clarence Thomas’ Latest Criminal Justice Ruling Is an Outright Tragedy“

From Ilya Somin at The Volokh Conspiracy, “A Troubling Supreme Court Habeas Decision: The Supreme Court was wrong to deny relief to a man imprisoned for activity that Court’s own rulings indicate was not illegal – one who never had an opportunity to challenge his incarceration on that basis.”

From Ian Millhiser at Vox, “The Supreme Court’s latest opinion means innocent people must remain in prison: Clarence Thomas’s majority opinion ensures that innocent people will spend years behind bars.”

UPDATE:  I have seen a few more pieces on Jones (and I am hoping to get some time to write up my thoughts this weekend):

From Chris Geidner at Law Dork, “SCOTUS rules that some legally innocent people can’t even challenge their imprisonment“

From Thomas Root at Lisa Legalinfo, “Judge Friendly Had It Right: Innocence Really Is Irrelevant.“

From Jordan Rubin at MSNBC, “Ketanji Brown Jackson calls out majority for unjustly ignoring innocence claims: All three Democratic appointees dissented from the GOP ruling, but Jackson wrote her own 39-page dissent.”