Supreme Court hears Rivers versus Guerrero habeas appeal arguments on exculpatory evidence

The Supreme Court of the United States convened on March 31, 2025, to hear arguments in the case of Rivers v. Guerrero, focusing on the interpretation of the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (AEDPA) regarding habeas corpus petitions. The session began with attorney Mister Brueland presenting the case, asserting that Congress did not intend to restrict the introduction of exculpatory evidence that arises during the appeal of a prisoner's first habeas case.

Mister Brueland emphasized that historically, claims emerging during the appeal process were considered on their merits, and he argued that the opposing side's interpretation of AEDPA is disconnected from both historical context and statutory text. He contended that this interpretation could lead to the dismissal of viable constitutional claims, including those related to sentencing and structural errors, which could unjustly deny prisoners their right to seek relief.

The discussion progressed to the definition of "second or successive" petitions, with Justice Thomas inquiring about its meaning post-AEDPA. Brueland explained that the term should be understood in light of historical practices and the legislative intent behind AEDPA, which he argued allows for certain amendments to be treated differently than successive petitions. He pointed out that Congress had specifically outlined exceptions for amendments in habeas cases, suggesting that only a narrow category of claims should be classified as second or successive.

As the dialogue continued, Justice Jackson raised concerns about the implications of allowing amendments during an ongoing appeal, questioning whether this could undermine the restrictions imposed by AEDPA. Brueland responded by clarifying that while amendments might be permissible, they could still be subject to procedural rules that could render them ineffective.

The arguments presented highlighted the tension between the need for judicial efficiency and the rights of prisoners to present new evidence that could affect their convictions. The court's deliberations underscored the complexities of interpreting AEDPA and its impact on the habeas corpus process.

The session concluded without a definitive ruling, leaving the implications of the case open for further consideration. The justices are expected to deliberate on the arguments presented and issue a decision that could significantly influence the landscape of habeas corpus litigation in the United States.