Kenneth R. Isom, Petitioner v. Arkansas

Kenneth Isom asked the Supreme Court to review whether a judge's past clashes with him created an unconstitutional risk of bias in a later hearing. On November 25, 2019, the Court declined review and did not decide that due process question on the merits.

The Court declined review on November 25, 2019. No vote count or opinion details are provided in the record here.

When the Court declines review, the lower court's result stays in place. That matters for criminal defendants who argue a judge was too personally involved in earlier fights with them to be seen as neutral.

This Supreme Court docket action is over. Practically, that means the Arkansas outcome remains in effect because the justices did not agree to hear the case.

Isom argued that Sam Pope's long adversarial history with him created an unconstitutional risk of bias. The issue arose when Pope later served as the trial judge in Isom's coram nobis hearing.

The immediate effect falls on Isom, because the Arkansas result remains in place. More broadly, defendants raising similar judicial-bias claims get no new nationwide guidance from this case.

There was no further step in this Supreme Court docket. The case ended here because the justices declined certiorari (the Court's decision to hear a case).