Miscellaneous per curiam decisions of the US Supreme Court's 2025 term that were actually in 2025 instead of 2026

607 US - Pitts v. Mississippi, Clark v. Sweeney, and Doe v. Dynamic Physical Therapy, LLC

So far, the US Supreme court has been lazy and only given me three per curiam opinions before the new year. I’ll go through all three of them in one article.

They are Pitts v Mississippi, Clark v Sweeny, and Doe v Dynamic Physical Therapy LLC.

Jeffrey Clyde Pitts v. Mississippi

Jeffrey Clyde Pitts v. Mississippi -

On petition for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of Mississippi.

This case reminds me of Maryland v. Craig, 497 U.S. 836 (1990).

Basically in child abuse cases, it is common to use a tv screen or something like that for a video conference call, because the child being in the same room as his tormenter can be well… traumatizing. However, defendants have a sixth amendment constitutional right to confront the witnesses against him. I mean, we wouldn’t want to falsely accuse someone of being a child rapist when he isn’t. The usual compromise is a live video with the kid in another room. As long as the defense lawyer can cross-examine the witness, it’s generally held to be okay.

One of the issues with this Mississippi case is that the statute authorizing screening is mandatory instead of discretionary. The US Supreme Court basically told the Mississippi Supreme Court to reconsider the case and decide whether a new trial is necessary for a “harmless error”.

Terence Clark v. Jeremiah Antoine Sweeney

Terence Clark, Director, Prince George’s County Department of Corrections, et al. v. Jeremiah Antoine Sweeney -

On petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit.

No, wrong Sweeney. Jeremiah Sweeny, not Sydney Sweeny. And Jeremiah Sweeney DOES NOT have great genes jeans.

The Fourth Circuit court is deranged.

Jeremiah Sweeney thought his neighbors stole his stash of marijuana. He quarreled with them, and then opened fire. He missed, but he hit and killed a bystander. The trial revolved around the location and angle of the shot. Juror 4’s curiosity got the better of him and he went to the crime scene himself. Now, why don’t juries do this more nowadays, actually visiting the places the case is about, I am not sure. Juror 4 told the other jurors, who then snitched on him to the judge. Both lawyers conferred with the judge, and everyone agreed to excuse Juror 4 and proceed with 11 jurors instead of declaring a mistrial. Sweeney was convicted of second-degree murder.

Later Sweeny petitioned for postconviction relief in state court on the basis that he had ineffective counsel. The state court denied relief. The bastard then petitioned for a writ of habeas corpus in the Federal District Court. He made the same argument, that his counsel was ineffective for not challenging the jury that was alleged tainted by Juror 4. The Federal District Court thankfully denied him.

The psychotic and deranged Fourth Circuit court then reversed the District Court’s denial. They said that the trial was marred by a “combination of extraordinary failures from juror to judge to attorney”, and that this deprived Sweeney of his right to confront witnesses against him and his right to an impartial jury. Sweeney did not make any of these arguments in his petition, he argued for ineffective counsel. The Fourth Circuit is literally making things up. Leftist judges are just evil. They love criminals. While most of us view rights as necessary to protect the innocent from false accusation and to protect liberty; to them, rights are simply weapons used in order to free the guilty. There has to be a procedure where the supreme court can put these so called “judges” on administrative leave for their contumacy. There is a difference of opinion, but there is a degree of flouting precedent where you just hate the law and should be fired.

In our court system, we have the principle of party presentation. Basically, the lawyers for both sides make arguments, and the judge decides who the winner is for each argument. The judge almost never on his own makes a decision. Usually, one of the parties makes an argument, and the judge either agrees or disagrees with him. Making up a brand-new argument is simply not done. Otherwise the judge is not a neutral arbiter.

The Fourth Circuit transgressed the party-presentation principle by granting relief on a claim that Sweeney never asserted and that the State never had the chance to address. […] The Fourth Circuit’s “radical transformation” of Sweeney’s simple ineffective-assistance claim “departed so drastically from the principle of party presentation as to constitute an abuse of discretion.”

The US Supreme Court reversed the Fourth Circuit and remanded the case for further proceedings.

I need to digress on habeas corpus. So, part of the reason why States are weak and missing the sovereignty they once enjoyed is due to the usage of force. One particular example is Habeas corpus. Federal Courts can use habeas corpus to release any prisoners in State custody they like based on their own interpretations of the US Constitution. It does not work the other way. States cannot use Habeas corpus in order to release prisoners in federal custody. This is an abusive one-way relationship. The Feds can free any prisoners the States have when they feel like it, but the States cannot release any prisoners the Feds have, no matter how unjust that detention is. Before the war between the states, federal courts only granted habeas corpus relief to prisoners in federal custody.

Another annoyance I have with modern habeas corpus is its usage to more or less undo trials. The original intention of habeas corpus was to challenge unlawful detentions, like when the government kidnaps you without trial. It’s supposed to force a trial because if you are imprisoned with no trial waiting, then the higher court can just let you out. Habeas corpus is also used for bail. Rules against “excessive bail” are enforced through habeas corpus: if the trial court sets a bail that is far too high, the higher court will use habeas corpus in order to set a lower and more appropriate bail. I understand challenging the non-existence of a trial, or improprieties before the actual trial, but I draw the line at the trial itself. It is all on record, which is what can be used on appeal. If you want to challenge a mere error in your trial, you should use an actual appeal instead of misusing habeas corpus. If a habeas corpus is heard, a conviction from a jury is sufficient authority to detain a prisoner. Unless the sentence was for like 15 years, and the prisoner is in for his 16^th year, then I feel that a conviction is sufficient authority to deny habeas corpus. Congress should write legislation to this effect.

Elizabeth in the tower of London after Wyatt’s rebellion.

John Doe v. Dynamic Physical Therapy, LLC

John Doe v. Dynamic Physical Therapy, LLC et al. -

On petition for writ of certiorari to the Court of Appeal of Louisiana, First Circuit.

The Louisiana Court of Appeal held that a state statute about public health emergencies barred a plaintiff’s federal claims. The US Supreme Court says this decision is incorrect.

A State statute of limitations is not applicable to a federal claim. A State has no power to confer immunity from federal causes of action.

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any state to the Contrary notwithstanding. - US Constitution, Article VI, clause two.

The judgement of the Louisiana Court of Appeal was reversed and the case remanded for further proceedings.