The US Supreme Court held Monday that individuals whose convictions became final before Ramos v. Louisiana, holding that jury verdicts in criminal trials must be unanimous under the Sixth Amendment to the US Constitution, do not receive the advantages of jury unanimity on federal collateral review.

In April 2020, the Supreme Court ruled in Ramos that defendants on trial in state courts must be convicted by a unanimous jury under the Sixth Amendment, which is incorporated to the states by the Fourteenth Amendment.

In Edward v. Vannoy, a Louisiana jury found a Black man, Thedrick Edwards, guilty of armed robbery, rape and kidnapping. “At the time, Louisiana law permitted non-unanimous jury verdicts if at least 10 of the 12 jurors found the defendant guilty.” In Edwards’ case, 11 of 12 jurors returned a guilty verdict—the outlier juror who voted to acquit was the only Black juror on Edward’s jury.

Justice Brett Kavanaugh, writing for the court, found that while new substantive rules apply retroactively on federal collateral review, “Ramos announced a new rule of criminal procedure” and “new procedural rules do not apply retroactively on federal collateral review.” Thus, “the Ramos jury-unanimity rule does not apply retroactively on federal collateral review.”

Justice Elena Kagan filed a dissenting opinion, joined by Justices Stephen Breyer and Sonia Sotomayor.

This decision’s impact is limited to Louisiana and Oregon—the only two states that have allowed non-unanimous jury verdicts in recent years.