Dellinger v. Tennessee
In brief
The Supreme Court refused to hear Dellinger’s case, so it did not decide whether Tennessee’s procedural rule violated the Constitution.
- Where it stands
- Decided
Decided · May 18, 2020
- What it’s about
- The Supreme Court denied Dellinger’s petition for review, leaving in place the Tennessee courts’ use of a procedural rule to prevent him from presenting his claim that he is intellectually disabled and therefore cannot be executed.
- Who it affects
- The denial left the Tennessee courts’ procedural ruling in place for Dellinger, but it did not decide whether the rule violates the Constitution.
Summary: written with AI from the case record.
What it's about
Dellinger argued that, after a state court found he had made an initial showing of intellectual disability, denying him a hearing on that claim violated the Eighth Amendment and the Fourteenth Amendment.
A Tennessee state court had already found that Dellinger made an initial showing of intellectual disability. Tennessee courts then used a procedural rule to prevent him from presenting that claim at a hearing.
The petition raised Eighth and Fourteenth Amendment questions about whether a procedural rule could prevent a hearing on Dellinger’s intellectual-disability claim.
Question presented
1. Whether the Tennessee Supreme Court’s application of a state procedural rule to bar Petitioner’s claim of intellectual disability, after the state court had already found that Petitioner had made a prima facie showing of intellectual disability, violates the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution. 2. Whether the Tennessee Supreme Court’s application of a state procedural rule to bar Petitioner’s claim of intellectual disability, after the state court had already found that Petitioner had made a prima facie showing of intellectual disability, violates the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.
What the Court decided
Holding
Petition DENIED.
What's next
This Supreme Court docket action is finished. The denial leaves the Tennessee courts’ procedural ruling in place for Dellinger, without a Supreme Court decision on his constitutional claim.
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
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.