I think the All Writs Act argument is circular. The Supreme Court doesn't have jurisdiction to begin with until a final judgment is issued by the state's highest court. So there's no jurisdiction for the Court to aid with a writ.
Honestly I just don't think SCOTUS has plenary power over the state courts. It probably can only stay executions through the congressionally authorized habeas process and the order in Skokie was in excess of its jurisdiction though understandable. This is just a part of our federalism, but SCOTUS hates it because it wants to be involved in every politically salient dispute.
What about when a prisoner alleges the manner of his execution is unconstitutional but the state supreme court has not ruled on his stay of execution 15 minutes before it is scheduled to occur? Or when the government has threatened to whisk away plaintiffs to a foreign prison without due process? Surely SCOTUS can use its equitable power to preserve its remedies in such a situation.
The second one doesn't involve a state court. The statutes permit a lot more SCOTUS intervention in federal affairs.
This is how federalism works. SCOTUS has what we call "supervisory power" over the "inferior courts" in the federal system. But the state courts are not inferior to SCOTUS and SCOTUS has no power to supervise them. It can only reverse final rulings, and only when those rulings come from the state's highest courts.
As for manner of execution challenges, this is theoretical because in practice they have resulted in final orders from state courts or last resorts, but if one didn't, my answer is to bring the challenge earlier. I am opposed to the death penalty, but I don't think highly of the strategy of trying to delay executions by bringing challenges at the last minute. If there's a lawful execution order, the state has the power to carry it out, and if there's a legitimate claim that it isn't lawful, it should be brought with dispatch, and resolved quickly, so there are no incentives for habeas lawyers to bring phony claims to delay executions.
I think the All Writs Act argument is circular. The Supreme Court doesn't have jurisdiction to begin with until a final judgment is issued by the state's highest court. So there's no jurisdiction for the Court to aid with a writ.
Honestly I just don't think SCOTUS has plenary power over the state courts. It probably can only stay executions through the congressionally authorized habeas process and the order in Skokie was in excess of its jurisdiction though understandable. This is just a part of our federalism, but SCOTUS hates it because it wants to be involved in every politically salient dispute.
What about when a prisoner alleges the manner of his execution is unconstitutional but the state supreme court has not ruled on his stay of execution 15 minutes before it is scheduled to occur? Or when the government has threatened to whisk away plaintiffs to a foreign prison without due process? Surely SCOTUS can use its equitable power to preserve its remedies in such a situation.
https://blog.dividedargument.com/p/dead-horses-and-the-strong-hand?utm_source=publication-search; https://harvardlawreview.org/print/vol-137/proper-parties-proper-relief/#footnote-115.
The second one doesn't involve a state court. The statutes permit a lot more SCOTUS intervention in federal affairs.
This is how federalism works. SCOTUS has what we call "supervisory power" over the "inferior courts" in the federal system. But the state courts are not inferior to SCOTUS and SCOTUS has no power to supervise them. It can only reverse final rulings, and only when those rulings come from the state's highest courts.
As for manner of execution challenges, this is theoretical because in practice they have resulted in final orders from state courts or last resorts, but if one didn't, my answer is to bring the challenge earlier. I am opposed to the death penalty, but I don't think highly of the strategy of trying to delay executions by bringing challenges at the last minute. If there's a lawful execution order, the state has the power to carry it out, and if there's a legitimate claim that it isn't lawful, it should be brought with dispatch, and resolved quickly, so there are no incentives for habeas lawyers to bring phony claims to delay executions.