In re Lopez
In brief
The Supreme Court declined review of Lopez's petition (denied it), so it did not decide the Rehaif questions and left his conviction and incarceration in place.
- Where it stands
- Decided
Decided · May 18, 2020
- What it’s about
- The Court denied Lopez’s petition, leaving his conviction and incarceration in place without deciding whether Rehaif v. United States applies retroactively in collateral challenges.
- Who it affects
- The order left Lopez's conviction and incarceration in place, but it gave no answer on whether Rehaif can support his later challenge.
Summary: written with AI from the case record.
What it's about
Lopez had argued that habeas relief was required because, under Rehaif, his conduct was not criminal.
The dispute followed the Supreme Court's 2019 decision in Rehaif v. United States and concerned whether that decision could affect Lopez's later challenge to his conviction.
Question presented
1. Whether the rule announced in Rehaif v. United States, 139 S. Ct. 2191 (2019), applies retroactively to cases on collateral review. 2. Whether a petitioner is entitled to a writ of habeas corpus when he is incarcerated for conduct that the law does not make criminal.
What the Court decided
Holding
Petition DENIED.
What's next
This Supreme Court docket action is complete. The order gave Lopez no relief from his conviction or incarceration and did not resolve either legal question.
Documents
Docket activity
New analysis added
AI analysis generated: Case Briefing
New analysis added
New analysis added
New analysis added
Show 7 moreShow fewer
New analysis added
New analysis added
New analysis added
New analysis added
New analysis added
New analysis added
New analysis added
More questions
- What did Lopez argue about Rehaif?
- Lopez argued that he was entitled to a court remedy because, under Rehaif, his conduct was not criminal.
Sources
Primary materials plus reporting. Best-effort analysis: this explainer relies on a mix of primary materials and trusted secondary sources. Official filings and opinions remain authoritative.