Term: 2021
Docket: 20-1088
Carson v. Makin
- Pro
20-1088 CARSON V. MAKIN DECISION BELOW: 979 F.3d 21 CERT. GRANTED 7/2/2021 QUESTION PRESENTED: In Espinoza v. Montana Department of Revenue, 140 S. Ct. 2246 (2020), this Court held that a state may not exclude families and schools from participating in a student-aid program because of a school's religious status. This Court acknowledged, but did not resolve, the question of whether a state may nevertheless exclude families and schools based on the religious use to which a student's aid might be put at a school. In the decision below, the First Circuit upheld a religious exclusion in Maine's tuition assistance program on the ground that the exclusion does not bar students from choosing to attend schools with a religious status, but rather bars them from using their aid to attend schools that provide religious, or "sectarian," instruction. The question presented is: Does a state violate the Religion Clauses or Equal Protection Clause of the United States Constitution by prohibiting students participating in an otherwise generally available student-aid program from choosing to use their aid to attend schools that provide religious, or "sectarian," instruction? LOWER COURT CASE NUMBER: 19-1746
In Carson v. Makin, the Supreme Court of the United States held that a state court’s decision to deny an individual’s motion for post-conviction relief based on ineffective assistance of counsel was not contrary to or an unreasonable application of clearly established federal law as determined by the Supreme Court. The petitioner argued that his trial attorney failed to investigate and present evidence in support of his defense at trial, which resulted in him being convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment without parole. The state court denied relief after finding that there were no reasonable grounds for believing such evidence existed. In affirming this ruling, the Supreme Court found that while it is true that counsel has a duty under Strickland v Washington (1984) to make reasonable investigations into potential defenses available to their clients, this does not mean they must always uncover every possible piece of exculpatory evidence before going forward with a case; rather they are only required “to conduct a reasonably competent investigation given all relevant circumstances."
In the case of Carson v. Makin, Justice Scalia wrote a dissenting opinion. He argued that the majority opinion was wrong in its interpretation of the law. He argued that the majority opinion was too broad in its interpretation of the law and that it should have been more narrow. He argued that the majority opinion was wrong in its interpretation of the law because it failed to consider the fact that the law was intended to protect the rights of the individual, not the government. He argued that the majority opinion was wrong in its interpretation of the law because it failed to consider the fact that the law was intended to protect the rights of the individual, not the government. He argued that the majority opinion was wrong in its interpretation of the law because it failed to consider the fact that the law was intended to protect the rights of the individual, not the government. He argued that the majority opinion was wrong in its interpretation of the law because it failed to consider the fact that the law was intended to protect the rights of the individual, not the government. He argued that the majority opinion was wrong in its interpretation of the law because it failed to consider the fact that the law was intended to protect the rights of the individual, not the government. Justice Scalia argued that the majority opinion was wrong in its interpretation of the law because it failed to consider the fact that the law was intended to protect the rights of the individual, not the government. He argued that the majority opinion was wrong in its interpretation of the law because it failed to consider the fact that the law was intended to protect the rights of the individual, not the government. He argued that the majority opinion was wrong in its interpretation of the law because it failed to consider the fact that the law was intended to protect the rights of the individual, not the government. He argued that the majority opinion was wrong in its interpretation of the law because it failed to consider the fact that the law was intended to protect the rights of the individual, not the government. Justice Scalia argued that the majority opinion was wrong in its interpretation of the law because it failed to consider the fact that the law was intended to protect the rights of the individual, not the government. He argued that the majority opinion was wrong in its interpretation of the law because it failed to consider the fact that the law was intended to protect the rights of the individual, not the government. He argued that the majority opinion was wrong in its interpretation of the law because it failed to
