Alaska v. Wright
View Official PDFBelow are plain-language sections to help you understand what the Court decided in Alaska v. Wright and why it matters. Quotes are taken from the syllabus (the Court’s short summary at the start of the opinion).
Summary
A short, plain-English overview of Alaska v. Wright.
In Alaska v. Wright, the Supreme Court addressed whether Sean Wright was 'in custody' under § 2254(a) after his state conviction served as a predicate for a federal conviction. The Court found that Wright's state conviction did not render him 'in custody pursuant to the judgment of a State court' for the purposes of filing a habeas corpus petition under § 2254(a). The Ninth Circuit's decision was vacated and the case was remanded for further proceedings.
Holding
The single most important “bottom line” of what the Court decided in Alaska v. Wright.
The Court held that Wright's state conviction did not make him 'in custody pursuant to the judgment of a State court' under § 2254(a).
Constitutional Concepts
These are the Constitution-related themes that appear in Alaska v. Wright. Click a concept to see other cases that involve the same idea.
-
Why Procedural Due Process is relevant to Alaska v. Wright
The case involves the procedural requirements for filing a habeas corpus petition under § 2254(a), specifically whether Wright was 'in custody' pursuant to a state court judgment.
Syllabus excerpt (verbatim)The District Court denied Wright's petition because Wright was not 'in custody pursuant to the judgment of a State court.' § 2254(a).
-
Why Judicial Review is relevant to Alaska v. Wright
The Supreme Court reviewed and vacated the Ninth Circuit's decision, exercising its power of judicial review over the interpretation of § 2254(a).
Syllabus excerpt (verbatim)The Court of Appeals clearly erred. Section 2254(a) permits a federal court to entertain an application for a writ of habeas corpus on behalf of a person 'in custody pursuant to the judgment of a State court.'
Key Quotes
Short excerpts from the syllabus in Alaska v. Wright that support the summary and concepts above.
The Court of Appeals clearly erred.
That Wright's state conviction served as a predicate for his federal conviction did not render him 'in custody pursuant to the judgment of a State court' under § 2254(a).
We grant the petition for a writ of certiorari, vacate the judgment of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, and remand the case.
