A 6-3 majority says there's "nothing incongruous" about a ruling that will leave thousands of federal prisoners with no remedy for challenging convictions or sentences that have become unlawful
What are the chances that Congress will just fix their goof and amend the statute to make it applicable as intended? Is there a huge political objection to this?
I look forward to your discussion of the loan case standing. My own objection is that it seems to rely on the "loss" of fees for administering loans they no longer have to administer. Just the same as they lose those fees if the student or parent or a benevolent rich person pays off the loans. Is there anything in the way the agency operates that would allow a contractual right to lost profits?
Does this mean, for example, someone held on pot charges wouldn’t be able to legally challenge their imprisonment even after a state legalized recreational use?
What are the chances that Congress will just fix their goof and amend the statute to make it applicable as intended? Is there a huge political objection to this?
I look forward to your discussion of the loan case standing. My own objection is that it seems to rely on the "loss" of fees for administering loans they no longer have to administer. Just the same as they lose those fees if the student or parent or a benevolent rich person pays off the loans. Is there anything in the way the agency operates that would allow a contractual right to lost profits?
Does this mean, for example, someone held on pot charges wouldn’t be able to legally challenge their imprisonment even after a state legalized recreational use?