Supreme Court Returns Three Criminal Cases to Lower Courts; Justices Split on Race and Police Seizures

The Supreme Court on Monday remanded three criminal cases to lower courts, each decision reflecting tensions among the justices over constitutional protections and evidentiary rules.

In *Grayson v. United States*, the court sent the case of Ashley Grayson, a Texas social media influencer, back to a federal appeals court. Grayson was convicted and sentenced to 10 years in prison for hiring someone to kill a rival influencer. Her trial relied heavily on a FaceTime recording that Grayson did not know was being made. Grayson argued prosecutors violated the Federal Wiretap Act by using the illegally intercepted call as evidence.

The 6th Circuit Court of Appeals had upheld the recording's admission under a "clean hands" exception, reasoning that the government played no role in the illegal interception. The federal government later conceded the appeals court applied the wrong legal standard, though prosecutors argued the error likely would not have changed the outcome.

U.S. Solicitor General D. John Sauer told the court the issue rarely arises, noting the case appeared to be the first in 30 years where the 6th Circuit or its district courts invoked the exception. The unsigned Supreme Court order returned the case for reconsideration.

Justice Samuel Alito dissented, writing that evidence beyond the recording proved Grayson's guilt.

## Race and Police Stops

The justices declined to hear *United States v. Carter*, a case centered on whether a suspect's race should influence whether police seized him unconstitutionally. Officers in Washington, D.C., approached Donte Carter and a group of men. After an officer asked Carter to lower his shirt to show he carried no gun, another officer then asked him to raise his pants. Police then noticed a bulge in Carter's groin area, found a gun during a frisk, and discovered a statement Carter made to police.

Carter sought to suppress the gun and statement as evidence obtained through an unconstitutional seizure. The D.C. Court of Appeals reversed his convictions, holding that a reasonable Black man in Carter's circumstances would have felt coerced into complying with the officer's demands rather than free to leave.

Senior Judge Eric Washington wrote that the officers' conduct was "coercive" and that this effect would have been "exacerbated by the fact that Carter is Black." He applied a test asking whether a reasonable person would have felt free to terminate the encounter and go about their business.

The federal government asked the Supreme Court to reverse, with Sauer arguing the seizure inquiry "does not vary with the state of mind of the particular individual being approached." He warned the ruling "threatens to seriously hinder law enforcement in the Nation's capital."

Carter countered that the Supreme Court had acknowledged more than 45 years ago that race is "not irrelevant" in determining whether someone would feel threatened. He also noted the lower court held that any reasonable person would fear failing to cooperate.

Alito, joined by Justice Clarence Thomas, dissented from the court's denial of review. Alito wrote he would have granted the case, arguing that the Constitution "almost never" allows government actors to treat people differently based on race. He cautioned against allowing individuals to receive different treatment based on statistics or expert testimony about racial groups.

## Death Penalty and Intellectual Disability

Justice Sonia Sotomayor, joined by Justices Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson, dissented from the court's denial of relief in *Saldaño v. Texas*. Victor Saldaño, convicted of murder and sentenced to death in 1996, argued in 2021 that he is intellectually disabled and therefore cannot be executed under the Supreme Court's 2002 *Atkins v. Virginia* ruling.

By 2024, both the state's experts and Saldaño's experts agreed he is intellectually disabled. Saldaño filed for post-conviction relief and asked the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals to remand his case for a trial court hearing on his *Atkins* claim. The state's highest criminal court declined to do so.

Both Saldaño and the state of Texas asked the Supreme Court to remand the case for consideration. The unsigned Supreme Court order rejected that request.

Sotomayor wrote that the decision "not only does a profound disservice to Saldaño, who now might be executed without any court ever determining whether he is, in fact, intellectually disabled," but also "severely undermines the State's interest in ensuring the legitimacy of its criminal system."

## Additional Remands

The court remanded *Newberry v. Texas* to the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals for further review. Michael Newberry was convicted of a 1996 robbery and murder and sentenced to life in prison. The state agreed that prosecutors failed to provide key evidence, and the trial court recommended a new trial. The appeals court rejected that recommendation in a brief, unsigned order saying Newberry had "not met his burden to prove that he is entitled to relief."

Both Newberry and Texas argued the appeals court's decision could not stand. The Supreme Court returned it "for further consideration in light of the position asserted by Texas."

The court similarly remanded *Busby v. Mississippi*. Jeffrey Busby was sentenced to 40 years for selling 2.84 grams of methadone. He argued that testimony from a forensic drug analyst who reviewed another analyst's work violated his Sixth Amendment right to confront witnesses. Mississippi agreed the testimony was unconstitutional but claimed any error was harmless. The Mississippi Supreme Court disagreed and ruled there was no constitutional violation. The U.S. Supreme Court vacated that judgment and remanded for further proceedings.