Supreme Court Ruling Presents Challenges for Innocent Federal Prisoners

Share

Explore Our Galleries

An NAACP flyer campaigning for the Dyer Anti-Lynching Bill, which passed the U.S. House of Representatives in 1922, but was filibustered to defeat in the Senate. Dyer, the NAACP, and freedom fighters around the country, like Flossie Baily, struggled for years to get the Dyer and other anti-lynching bills passed, to no avail. Today there is still no U.S. law specifically against lynching. In 2005, eighty of the 100 U.S. Senators voted for a resolution to apologize to victims' families and the country for their failure to outlaw lynching. Courtesy of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP).
Some Exhibits to Come – One Hundred Years of Jim Crow
Mammy Statue JC Museum Ferris
Bibliography – One Hundred Years Of Jim Crow
Claude, age 23, just months before his 1930 murder. Courtesy of Faith Deeter.
Freedom’s Heroes During Jim Crow: Flossie Bailey and the Deeters
Souvenir Portrait of the Lynching of Abram Smith and Thomas Shipp, August 7, 1930, by studio photographer Lawrence Beitler. Courtesy of the Indiana Hisorical Society.
An Iconic Lynching in the North
Lynching Quilt
Claxton Dekle – Prosperous Farmer, Husband & Father of Two
Ancient manuscripts about mathematics and astronomy from Timbuktu, Mali
Some Exhibits to Come – African Peoples Before Captivity
Shackles for Adults & Children from the Henrietta Marie
Some Exhibits to Come – The Middle Passage
Slaveship Stowage Plan
What I Saw Aboard a Slave Ship in 1829
Arno Michaels
Life After Hate: A Former White Power Leader Redeems Himself

Breaking News!

Today's news and culture by Black and other reporters in the Black and mainstream media.

Ways to Support ABHM?

By Stacy M. Brown, The Washington Informer

In a 6-3 decision, the Supreme Court delivered a blow to the rights of federal prisoners, particularly those who may be completely innocent.

This week’s ruling in Jones v. Hendrix establishes a significant hurdle for prisoners seeking to challenge their convictions in court.

The case revolved around Marcus DeAngelo Jones, a federal prisoner convicted in 2000 of possessing a firearm after a felony conviction.

However, in a 2019 case called Rehaif v. United States, the Supreme Court declared that individuals could not be convicted under the felon-in-possession statute unless they were aware of their prior felony conviction at the time of possessing the gun.

Jones argued that he mistakenly believed his previous felony conviction had been expunged when he acquired the firearm, rendering his conviction invalid under Rehaif.

He said because he was unaware of his felony status, federal law did not make his possession of the firearm illegal.

Unfortunately, the Supreme Court’s ruling, as outlined in Justice Thomas’s opinion, prevents Jones from challenging his conviction altogether.

The outcome is because of a federal law known as Section 2255, which generally bars federal prisoners from making multiple challenges to their convictions or sentences.

Learn more about this case and its implications.

Some people believe that the Supreme Court has outlived its usefulness.

More breaking news here.

Comments Are Welcome

Note: We moderate submissions in order to create a space for meaningful dialogue, a space where museum visitors – adults and youth –– can exchange informed, thoughtful, and relevant comments that add value to our exhibits.

Racial slurs, personal attacks, obscenity, profanity, and SHOUTING do not meet the above standard. Such comments are posted in the exhibit Hateful Speech. Commercial promotions, impersonations, and incoherent comments likewise fail to meet our goals, so will not be posted. Submissions longer than 120 words will be shortened.

See our full Comments Policy here.

Leave a Comment