Note
The Supreme Court's 2018-2019 Criminal Cases and How Each Was Decided
Here are the 13 criminal and related cases the Supreme Court heard in its 2018-2019 term, including Gamble, Garza, Haymond, and Timbs, with each result noted.
Written by Brandon Sample · Updated · Filed under Habeas corpus and 2255
Update (October 2026): This roundup was written in December 2018, while these cases were pending. All of them have since been decided. We have added each result below. Check the Supreme Court's opinions page for the full decisions.
Below are quick summaries of 13 criminal and related cases the Supreme Court heard in its 2018-2019 term, with the result of each. Several still matter for federal defendants today, especially Garza on appeal waivers, Mont and Haymond on supervised release, and Stokeling and Stitt on the Armed Career Criminal Act.
How the Supreme Court's term and caseload work
The Court's term starts on the first Monday in October. The 2018-2019 term began on October 1, 2018, and ran until the first Monday in October 2019.
At the time, about 7,000 to 8,000 cases were filed with the Court each term, a huge increase from the roughly 1,200 cases filed in the 1950-51 term. The Court grants full briefing and argument in only about 80, roughly a 1% chance.
That should not scare people away from filing. The Court is always looking for cases of national importance, cases with new or novel questions of law, or cases where lower courts disagree. If your case has important implications under the Constitution or other federal law, the Court is more likely to want to hear it.
The criminal cases and how each was decided
This term was shaping up to have some very intriguing criminal issues. It included several Eighth Amendment and death penalty cases, two cases about how state crimes work with the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA), and a direct challenge to a long-held exception to the Double Jeopardy Clause.
The Court kept taking new cases during the term, so this list was a snapshot of the criminal cases on the calendar as of December 2018.
Granted: April 30, 2018
Argued: November 6, 2018
Decided: April 1, 2019. Bucklew lost.
Can an inmate challenge Missouri's lethal injection method as applied to him?
Russell Bucklew said a medical condition would make lethal injection cause him severe pain, in violation of the Eighth Amendment's ban on cruel and unusual punishment. The Court was asked whether an inmate must show a workable alternative method of execution, and what proof is needed to show the alternative reduces the risk of severe pain. The case also raised whether an inmate can challenge the qualifications of the officials who actually carry out the execution.
Granted: November 2, 2018
Argued: March 20, 2019
Decided: June 21, 2019. Flowers won. The Court found the prosecutor's jury strikes violated Batson.
Did the Mississippi Supreme Court properly apply Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79 (1986)?
Batson bars prosecutors from striking jurors because of race. Curtis Flowers was tried six times for the murder of four people, with multiple trial errors along the way. At his last trial, the prosecutor struck five Black prospective jurors. The Mississippi Supreme Court found no violation.
Granted: June 28, 2018
Argued: December 6, 2018
Decided: June 17, 2019. Gamble lost, 7-2. The Court kept the separate sovereigns doctrine.
Should the "separate sovereigns" exception to the Double Jeopardy Clause be overruled?
The doctrine lets a state and the federal government each prosecute a person for the same conduct. Gamble was prosecuted for being a felon with a gun in both state and federal court.
Granted: June 18, 2018
Argued: October 30, 2018
Decided: February 27, 2019. Garza won.
If a defendant asks his lawyer to appeal, but his plea deal waived appeal, is the lawyer presumed ineffective for not filing?
Gilberto Garza pleaded guilty to two offenses and waived his right to appeal. He asked his lawyer to appeal anyway, and the lawyer did not, because of the waiver. Four months later, Garza filed a post-conviction petition claiming his lawyer was ineffective for not filing the appeals. The Idaho Supreme Court held there was no presumption of prejudice. Most federal courts disagreed. The Supreme Court held that prejudice is presumed when a lawyer fails to file a requested appeal, even with an appeal waiver.
Granted: March 5, 2018
Argued: October 2, 2018
Decided: June 20, 2019. Gundy lost. The Court upheld the law.
Did the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act (SORNA) unlawfully hand Congress's power to the Attorney General?
SORNA let the Attorney General decide how its registration rules apply to people convicted before the law passed. Gundy argued that this broke the "nondelegation doctrine," which limits how much lawmaking power Congress can give away. The Court agreed to hear only this narrow issue. Gundy had been convicted of failing to register, even though his sex offense conviction came before the law was passed.
Granted: February 26, 2018
Argued: October 2, 2018
Decided: February 27, 2019. The Court sent the case back for a new look.
Does the Eighth Amendment bar executing a person whose mental decline means he cannot remember the crime or understand his execution?
Vernon Madison had been on death row for over 30 years. He had suffered several strokes and was seriously disabled. In 2016, the Eleventh Circuit found him incompetent to be executed. The Supreme Court reversed that ruling under a federal habeas law. Madison then came back to the Court, asking it to find him incompetent under the Eighth Amendment. The Court held that memory loss alone does not bar execution. But a person who cannot rationally understand why he is being executed may not be executed, whatever the cause.
Granted: November 2, 2018
Argued: February 26, 2019
Decided: June 3, 2019. Mont lost, 5-4.
Does time in jail on a new charge pause a federal supervised release term?
Jason Mont had been convicted of several federal crimes. He was on federal supervised release when he was arrested on state charges. The district court treated his supervised release as paused while he was jailed on the state case, and Mont challenged its power to do that. The Court held that pretrial detention later credited toward the new sentence pauses ("tolls") supervised release under 18 U.S.C. § 3624(e).
Granted: March 19, 2018
Argued: October 10, 2018
Decided: March 19, 2019. The government won.
If immigration officials do not detain a noncitizen right when he leaves criminal custody, is he exempt from mandatory immigration detention?
The federal appeals courts disagreed on this question. The Supreme Court held that he is not exempt just because of the delay.
Granted: June 28, 2018
Argued: November 26, 2018
Decided: May 28, 2019. The officers won.
Does probable cause defeat a civil rights claim for a retaliatory arrest under the First Amendment?
Russell Bartlett was arrested for disorderly conduct and harassment and sued the officers. He claimed they arrested him for what he said. The Court had already held that probable cause defeats a retaliatory prosecution claim. But that rule did not necessarily cover retaliatory arrests. The lower court held Bartlett could still sue even if the officers had probable cause. The Court held that probable cause generally defeats this kind of claim, with a narrow exception.
Granted: April 2, 2018
Argued: October 9, 2018
Decided: January 15, 2019. Stokeling lost.
Is a robbery that needs only slight force a "violent felony" under the ACCA?
Denard Stokeling pleaded guilty to a federal gun possession charge. He had prior Florida robbery convictions, so he faced an enhanced sentence under the ACCA. He argued those robberies were not "violent felonies" because Florida courts read its robbery law to require only slight force to overcome the victim's resistance. The Court held that is enough force for the ACCA.
Granted: June 18, 2018
Argued: November 28, 2018
Decided: February 20, 2019. Timbs won.
Does the Eighth Amendment's ban on excessive fines apply to the states?
Several parts of the Bill of Rights, such as the Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, and Eighth Amendments, apply to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment. This is called "incorporation." But not every right has been incorporated. Indiana sought to take Tyson Timbs's expensive Land Rover through forfeiture. The trial court found that excessive. The Indiana Supreme Court said the clause did not clearly apply to states. The Supreme Court held it does, through the Fourteenth Amendment.
Granted: October 26, 2018
Argued: February 26, 2019
Decided: June 26, 2019. Haymond won.
Can a judge impose a mandatory 5-year prison term for a supervised release violation based only on the judge's own findings?
Andre Haymond was on supervised release after a child pornography conviction. A judge found, by a preponderance of the evidence, that he had more such images. Under 18 U.S.C. § 3583(k), that triggered a mandatory 5-year revocation term. The Tenth Circuit held this violated his right to a jury. The Supreme Court agreed that this use of § 3583(k) was unconstitutional, though no single opinion got five votes.
Granted: April 23, 2018
Argued: October 9, 2018
Decided: December 10, 2018. The government won.
Does burglary of a structure or vehicle adapted for overnight use count as "burglary" under the ACCA?
The case involved Arkansas residential burglary and Tennessee aggravated burglary. Whether the defendants had committed "violent felonies" turned on whether the elements of these state crimes were "the same as, or narrower than," the elements of generic burglary. The Court held that these offenses count as generic burglary under the ACCA.
What these cases mean for federal defendants today
Garza is the most practical. If you want to appeal, tell your lawyer in writing, even if your plea agreement waived appeal. The notice of appeal in a criminal case is generally due 14 days after the judgment is entered, under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 4(b)(1)(A). A lawyer who ignores a request to appeal is presumed to have prejudiced you.
If you are on supervised release, Mont means that time in jail on a new charge may not count toward your supervision term if it is later credited to a new sentence. See 18 U.S.C. § 3624(e).
Facing a federal sentence? Book a consultation to talk it through with Brandon Sample.