Justice Sotomayor Raises Alarm Over Supreme Court’s Refusal to Hear Death Row Appeal

Advertisement

A powerful dissent from U.S. Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor—joined by fellow liberal Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson—has reignited debate about how America’s highest court chooses which cases it will hear, especially in matters of life and death.

The justices made headlines Monday not for a full ruling but through their order list—a routine, often overlooked document that reveals which appeals the Court will or won’t review. In this instance, the Court declined to hear the appeal of Missouri death row inmate Lance Shockley. However, Sotomayor and Jackson were not silent. They dissented.

The case involves the legal technicality of a certificate of appealability, a required step for state prisoners seeking to appeal in federal court. Shockley had secured support from one judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 8th Circuit to pursue his appeal. But under that circuit’s rules—stricter than in many others—that judge was overruled by colleagues. Shockley was blocked from appealing.

Justice Sotomayor warned that such procedural inconsistencies between federal circuits mean some prisoners get a fairer shot at justice based on geography. She criticized the Supreme Court for missing an opportunity to standardize the law across all circuits, writing: “Had the Court instead followed the approach taken in the Third, Fourth, Seventh, and Ninth Circuits, that error would have been avoided.”

The disturbing details of Shockley’s trial only added urgency to Sotomayor’s dissent. A juror who became the jury foreperson had authored a graphic novel about a revenge killing following a drunk-driving incident—a detail never explored during jury selection. That juror not only participated in the trial but allegedly shared the book with fellow jurors during deliberations. Shockley’s lawyer declined to challenge this, and the trial court never heard testimony on the matter—an omission Sotomayor described as “difficult to see” as anything other than ineffective legal counsel.

Advertisement

The Supreme Court’s decision to ignore the case doesn’t determine whether Shockley should win or lose his appeal. It determines whether he can even make it. By rejecting the case without explanation, the Court reinforced the fragmented state of the law and left potential injustices unresolved.

With just two justices dissenting, the case failed to meet the four-justice threshold required for review. Still, Sotomayor and Jackson’s outcry underscores the immense power the Supreme Court holds—not only in the decisions it makes but in the cases it chooses not to hear.

For readers in Nigeria and beyond watching the American legal system for lessons on fairness, transparency, and justice reform, this case is a stark reminder: access to justice can sometimes depend not on the law itself but on the court’s willingness to hear you.

Reported by Newspot Nigeria, where justice matters.