Filed: May 20, 2005
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: FILED FOR PUBLICATION MAY 18 2005 CATHY A. CATTERSON, CLERK UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT CARL MERTON IRONS, II, No. 05-15275 Petitioner - Appellee, D.C. No. CV-04-00220-LKK Eastern District of California, v. Sacramento TOM L. CAREY, Warden, ORDER Respondent - Appellant. Before: REINHARDT, NOONAN, and FERNANDEZ, Circuit Judges. The parties are ordered to file supplemental briefs, not to exceed 25 pages, within 28 days from the date of this order. The
Summary: FILED FOR PUBLICATION MAY 18 2005 CATHY A. CATTERSON, CLERK UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT CARL MERTON IRONS, II, No. 05-15275 Petitioner - Appellee, D.C. No. CV-04-00220-LKK Eastern District of California, v. Sacramento TOM L. CAREY, Warden, ORDER Respondent - Appellant. Before: REINHARDT, NOONAN, and FERNANDEZ, Circuit Judges. The parties are ordered to file supplemental briefs, not to exceed 25 pages, within 28 days from the date of this order. The s..
More
FILED
FOR PUBLICATION MAY 18 2005
CATHY A. CATTERSON, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
CARL MERTON IRONS, II, No. 05-15275
Petitioner - Appellee, D.C. No. CV-04-00220-LKK
Eastern District of California,
v. Sacramento
TOM L. CAREY, Warden,
ORDER
Respondent - Appellant.
Before: REINHARDT, NOONAN, and FERNANDEZ, Circuit Judges.
The parties are ordered to file supplemental briefs, not to exceed 25 pages,
within 28 days from the date of this order. The supplemental briefs shall discuss
the constitutionality of the standards that Congress has set forth in the
Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (“AEDPA”), 28 U.S.C. §
2254(d)(1). Specifically, the parties should discuss, in light of Marbury v.
Madison, 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 137 (1803), and City of Boerne v. Flores,
521 U.S.
507, 536 (1997), whether AEDPA unconstitutionally prescribes the sources of
law that the Judicial Branch must use in exercising its jurisdiction or
unconstitutionally prescribes the substantive rules of decision by which the federal
courts must decide constitutional questions that arise in state habeas cases. The
parties should consider whether, under the separation of powers doctrine or for
any other reason involving the constitutionality of 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1), this
court should decline to apply the AEDPA standards in this case.
This court also certifies the above question to the Attorney General of the
United States pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2403(a). The Attorney General is permitted
to intervene and file a brief, not to exceed 25 pages, within 28 days from the date
of this order. If the panel determines that further oral argument would be of
assistance, it will schedule such argument and inform the parties, the Attorney
General, and any amici at that time. This court also invites interested parties to
request leave, within 14 days from the day of this order, to file amicus curiae
briefs. Should leave be granted, such parties shall have 21 days from the date
thereof to file briefs of not more than 20 pages.
Judge Fernandez does not join in this order.
2