Criminal Law

RELEASE: Supreme Court’s “Deeply Disappointing” Ruling in Edwards  

WASHINGTON – The Supreme Court this morning issued its ruling in Edwards v Vannoy, holding that the rule announced last year in Ramos v. Louisiana—that the Sixth Amendment guarantees the right to a unanimous jury verdict in both federal and state criminal trials—does not apply retroactively on collateral review. Constitutional Accountability Center President Elizabeth Wydra issued the following reaction:

We are deeply disappointed with the Supreme Court’s decision this morning. As a result of this morning’s decision, someone who was convicted by a non-unanimous jury, and who exhausted his direct appeals before Ramos was decided, cannot challenge his unconstitutional conviction based on Ramos’s holding.

The majority this morning in Edwards all but admitted that Ramos announced a “watershed” rule of criminal procedure, which—under the Court’s precedent from Teague v. Lane—should apply retroactively. But the Court overruled that part of Teague, declaring that there is no “watershed” exception and that “procedural rules do not apply retroactively on federal collateral review”—no exceptions. This decision is wrong.

Echoing the amicus brief CAC filed on behalf of law professors and social scientists, Justice Kagan explained in dissent that the Ramos unanimity rule “is as ‘bedrock’ as bedrock comes” because it “is grounded in the Nation’s constitutional traditions—with centuries-old practice becoming part of the Sixth Amendment’s original meaning.”

The majority did not contest this characterization, but the Court nevertheless doubled down on its notion that no rule is “watershed” enough to apply retroactively. In doing so, it unfortunately overlooked the critical work the nation had to do after Teague, and still has to do, to root out systemic racism in our criminal justice system—as demonstrated by the Ramos ruling itself.

#

Resources:

CAC’s case page in Edwards v. Vannoyhttps://www.theusconstitution.org/litigation/edwards-v-vannoy/

CAC’s case page in Ramos v. Louisianahttps://www.theusconstitution.org/litigation/ramos-v-louisiana/

#

Constitutional Accountability Center is a think tank, public interest law firm, and action center dedicated to fulfilling the progressive promise of the Constitution’s text and history. Visit CAC’s website at www.theusconstitution.org.

###

More from Criminal Law

Criminal Law
U.S. Supreme Court

Pitchford v. Cain

In Pitchford v. Cain, the Supreme Court is considering whether, under federal habeas law, the Mississippi Supreme Court unreasonably held that a criminal defendant waived his right to challenge racial bias in his jury selection.
Criminal Law
January 22, 2026

Supreme Court broadens police authority for warrantless home entry

Smart Cities Dive
The Case v. Montana decision replaces the Fourth Amendment’s “probable cause” requirement with “objective reasonableness”...
Criminal Law
January 20, 2026

CAC Release: Justices Unanimously Conclude that Restitution Under the MVRA Is a Criminal Penalty

WASHINGTON, DC – Following today’s decision at the Supreme Court in Ellingburg v. United States,...
By: Smita Ghosh
Criminal Law
January 14, 2026

Supreme Court Backs Police Entry Without Warrant in Emergencies

The New York Times
The Supreme Court on Wednesday said law enforcement officials had flexibility to enter a home...
Criminal Law
January 14, 2026

CAC Release: Supreme Court Ignores History in Favor of Its Own Rule for Warrantless Home Entries

WASHINGTON, DC – Following today’s decision at the Supreme Court in Case v. Montana, a...
By: Brian R. Frazelle
Criminal Law
November 11, 2025

Supreme Court to hear compassionate release case

Gray TV Washington News Bureau
[video width="1028" height="576" mp4="https://www.theusconstitution.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/11/Recording-2025-11-17-090534.mp4"][/video] WASHINGTON (Gray DC) - The Supreme Court is set to hear...