Ayestas v. Davis, 584 U.S. ___ (2018), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that an ex parte decision by a judge can still be judicial in nature.[1][2]
| Ayestas v. Davis | |
|---|---|
 | |
| Decided March 21, 2018 | |
| Full case name | Ayestas v. Davis |
| Citations | 584 U.S. ___ (more) |
| Holding | |
| An ex parte decision by a judge can still be judicial in nature. | |
| Court membership | |
| |
| Case opinions | |
| Majority | Alito, joined by unanimous |
| Concurrence | Sotomayor |
Description
editThe case concerned an imprisoned person's funding request for a habeas corpus petition under a law that gave a judge discretion to approve funds that were "reasonably necessary." A judge denied the request because the imprisoned person, Ayesta, did not show a "substantial need" for the funds. The Supreme Court reversed because this "substantial need" standard was more demanding than the "reasonably necessary" language of the statute. Indeed, in the Court's estimation, the lower court was effectively requiring Ayesta to prove his case before being allowed to fund the investigation.[3]
References
editExternal links
edit | This article related to the Supreme Court of the United States is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by expanding it. |