Hughes Transportation, Inc. v. United States

This case grew out of a murder conviction and a factual fight over whether Sweeney could have been the shooter given his location and the bullet wound angle. The Supreme Court said the Fourth Circuit was wrong to order a new trial based on a claim Sweeney never raised and reversed that court.

Per curiam opinion reversing the Fourth Circuit; the record here does not provide a vote count or any separate opinions.

“The Fourth Circuit "departed dramatically from the principle of party presentation," so "we reverse."”

The decision reinforces that appeals courts should decide the issues the parties actually present. That matters for people seeking post-conviction relief, because a court cannot grant a new trial on its own new theory.

The Supreme Court has finished with this case. The Fourth Circuit's new-trial order is undone, and the lower courts must proceed consistent with the Supreme Court's decision.

The case centered on whether Sweeney could have been the shooter based on his location and the bullet wound angle. The Supreme Court focused on a different problem: the Fourth Circuit used a claim Sweeney never made.

People seeking post-conviction or habeas relief and the courts reviewing those cases are most affected. The decision tells appellate judges to stick to the issues the parties actually raise.

The Supreme Court's work is done. The Fourth Circuit's order for a new trial does not stand, and the case moves forward under the Supreme Court's ruling.