The Volokh Conspiracy
Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent
Is the Fourth Circuit the New Ninth?
Could today's summary reversal be a sign of things to come?
There was a time when the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit was notorious for issuing decisions at odds with existing Supreme Court precedent, and getting repeatedly overturned as a result. The Ninth Circuit was considered the most liberal circuit in the country at the time, and had a few judges who consciously sought to evade restrictive precedent.
Early in the Roberts Court, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit developed something of a reputation as the "new Ninth," particularly with regard to habeas cases. In a string of cases, the Sixth Circuit was reversed, often summarily, for granting habeas petitions too readily.
Both the Ninth and Sixth Circuits are more conservative than they used to be, and are more aligned with the Supreme Court. Today the court that may be most at odds with the Supreme Court might be the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit--coincidentally, my new home circuit. (The other contender would be the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, which has only one judge appointed by a Republican president, who was just recently confirmed.)
Today the Supreme Court summarily reversed the Fourth Circuit in Clark v. Sweeney, a habeas case. In a unanimous per curiam opinion, the Court concluded that the Fourth Circuit erred in granting a habeas petition, and that its error was so egregious that it justified summary reversal. As the Court summarized the case:
A Maryland jury found Jeremiah Sweeney guilty of second-degree murder and several other crimes. Sweeney's convictions were affirmed on appeal, and his bid for postconviction relief in state court was unsuccessful. Sweeney sought habeas relief in Federal District Court, and that court, too, denied relief. But the Fourth Circuit reversed and ordered a new trial, relying on a claim that Sweeney never asserted. Because the Court of Appeals departed dramatically from the principle of party presentation, we reverse.
Is this decision a sign of things to come? While I do not expect there to be a tremendous number of habeas cases going from the Fourth Circuit to One First Street, I would not be surprised if the Fourth Circuit amasses a high reversal rate over the next several terms. Last term, the Fourth went 0 for 8, and it's starting off in the hole for OT 2025.
Also today, the Court summarily reversed a decision from the Mississippi Supreme Court. As with Clark, there was no recorded dissent.
Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please to post comments
Why would it occur to judges to rely on a claim Sweeney never asserted?
Because they wanted to rule in Sweeney's favor, but knew the claim made by Sweeney was insufficient. So, they decided to become his de facto appellate attorneys and created a claim that they thought would work.
I'm glad the 4th Circuit is finally being recognized for the liberal outlier it is. The string of frankly bizarre rulings out of there is long and goes back several years. It's kinda crazy how much it's changed from being a fairly strongly conservative circuit.
Funny we never have this conversation about the Fifth. This is a court so bad that they got summarily reversed in favor of a plaintiff prisoner in a 1983 back in 2020. And since then they just have been getting reversed in cases both large and small.
Don't you read Blackman's posts.
The Fifth is full of staunch originalists, rigorous jurists, and courageous judges. (With an exception or two).
Speaking of originalism ...
https://www.dorfonlaw.org/2025/11/originalisms-racist-birth-and.html
the 5th doesn't really get reversed allot. their reversals just get a lot of press.
I'm sure someone who writes "allot" is doing statistical analysis on their decisions and totally not making stuff up.
Says the person providing no support at all for the claim that the 5th is losing hard at SCOTUS.
I asked Grok, because I don't care that much about the answer
2024 Merits Decisions:
Circuit Total Cases Wins (Affirmed) Losses (Reversed/Vacated) Loss Rate
4th 8 0 8 100%
5th 13 3 10 77%
Total 59 15 44 75%
Boy, that 5th Circuit is, doing just about average
OT24 Rocket Docket (Emergency Applications)
Circuit Total Applications Wins (Denied/Upheld) Losses (Granted/Reversed) Loss Rate
4th 7 2 5 71%
5th ~25 ~6 ~19 ~76%
Total ~58 ~16 ~42 ~72%
Wow, that 5th Circuit is, again, pretty much average
So, as usual, the leftists are full of sh!t
Also depends on what they’re getting reversed on. Are they getting reversed on technical cases about ERISA? Or are they getting reversed on their major constitutional decisions?
Clark v. Mississippi was based in part on the Mississippi Supreme Court using the victim-rights provision in the Mississippi State Constitution to circumvent the Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment (applicable to the States via the 14th Amendment). SCOTUS correctly and unanimously reminded Mississippi of the Supremacy Clause.
A per curiam opinion technically doesn't allow us to determine who joined it. It's possible someone privately dissented.
The government did not merely rest on the idea that a state could override federal law here. It argued that, on the merits, the law did not violate the Confrontation Clause.
They quite likely were wrong, but I would have preferred SCOTUS take the case for review and hold a full argument.
https://www.supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?filename=/docket/docketfiles/html/public/24-1159.html
A per curiam opinion technically doesn't allow us to determine who joined it. It's possible someone privately dissented.
While technically true, I doubt it. Privately dissenting was done in the past but today is highly unlikely. Justices today file dissenting opinions from cert denials, so I don't think a dissenting Justice from either of today's decisions would even hesitate to make that dissent public.
Kagan and Breyer, in particular, repeatedly carefully picked their spots. This has been discussed by various legal analysts.
They have also joined certain opinions to avoid a worse opinion, even if, given their druthers, they would not have. They have discussed this general strategy.
Merely not providing a public dissent in a per curiam is quite likely. Alito noted once a year or so ago that he privately dissented in criminal justice case.
Justices today file dissenting opinions from cert denials
If you keep track, you would notice that only a few justices tend to do so.
Not every denial. We actually have no idea. Which is why the rule should require the noting of every dissent for every denial.
I see the reason for not saying who voted what way when a case is actually accepted. But all denials should have the votes recorded.
Whether to accept or decline a case is an important judicial decision that shouldn’t be kept secret. This is a public decision and the public should know which justices think which cases are worthy of review. Same goes for any kind of extraordinary relief.
My state supreme court has a discretionary docket and votes are recorded on every single action the court takes. We even know who dissents when the court accepts a case.
Yes, but their argument was complete crap, given controlling precedent.
Sorry, but
1: States do not get to invent new "rights" that cancel out existing Federal rights
2: You're getting a gift that SCOTUS lets States hide a witness from the defendant AT ALL. AS the gift precedents say that the judge has to conduct a spceific inquiry as to whether or not this particular witness must be hidden from this particular defendant, and not only did that not happen by the prosecution denied that it should ever happen, it's not clear to me what the point of a full hearing would be
States do not get to invent new "rights" that cancel out existing Federal rights
States do get to establish new rights (no quotes necessary) that does not cancel out federal rights. Constitutional rights limit the federal government and federal areas. Congress doesn't have the constitutional authority to pass a law overriding the 1A.
So, the issue is if this victim rights type legislation is constitutional on the merits.
getting a gift
A gift? As in SCOTUS decided the Constitution allows it?
I checked the docket. This case was around since last spring. They redistributed it at conference repeatedly. It seems to have concerned one or more of the justices some.
I don't know if this case is so obviously wrong as compared to many other cases that they take for review. Before overturning a state law, upheld by its highest court, I think full review would be warranted.
I love the pointed instructions to the 4th Circuit on what they're expected to do when the case comes back. Not quite a directed decision, but almost.
On remand, the Fourth Circuit should analyze the ineffective-assistance claim that Sweeney asserted. Under the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996, relief is barred unless the state court’s decision was “contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States.” 28 U. S. C. §2254(d). When assessing a Strickland claim that a state court has already adjudicated, the “analysis is ‘doubly deferential.’ ” Dunn v. Reeves, 594 U. S. 731, 739 (2021) (per curiam) (quoting Burt v. Titlow, 571 U. S. 12, 15 (2013)). “[A] federal court may grant relief only if every ‘fairminded jurist’ would agree that every reasonable lawyer would have made a different decision.” 594 U. S., at 739–740 (quoting Harrington v. Richter,
562 U. S. 86, 101 (2011))
Highlighting mine. But yeah, that's a nice smack to the head 🙂
I hope this party presentation point gains traction. I don't know how many times on appeal I have lost, not because of what the State argued, but because of a novel theory the Court invented on its own citing the "We may affirm on any reason appearing in the record" line.
In my experience, this rule, if applied generally would be a boon to defendants.
*I realize that this case dealt with AEDPA deference and for that reason was rather indisputably right.