The US Supreme Court Monday granted both Jones v. Hendrix and Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) v. Cochran certiorari based on their petitions. Both of these cases were added to the 2022-2023 docket.

Jones v. Hendrix is an Eighth Circuit habeas corpus case about 28 US Code § 2255. Under § 2255, federal inmates can collaterally challenge their convictions on any ground cognizable on collateral review, with successive attacks limited to certain claims indicating “factual innocence” or relying on “constitutional law decisions made retroactive” by the Supreme Court. In 2000, a jury convicted Jones of one count of making false statements to acquire a firearm and two counts of possessing a firearm as a felon under 18 US Code § 922(a)(6)(g)(1). The Supreme Court previously denied Jones certiorari but granted it after the Eighth Circuit affirmed a lower court’s dismissal of his habeas petition in August 2021. The appeals court’s decision was based on the petitioner’s failure to show § 2255’s inadequacy or ineffectiveness in “testing the legality of his detention”, which it held was a “prerequisite in his case to habeas relief.”

Jones v. Hendrix will address the question of

whether federal inmates who did not—because established circuit precedent stood firmly against them—challenge their convictions on the ground that the statute of conviction did not criminalize their activity may apply for habeas relief under § 2241 after this Court later makes clear in a retroactively applicable decision that the circuit precedent was wrong and that they are legally innocent of the crime of conviction.

SEC v. Cochran is a Fifth Circuit case about district courts’ power to hear challenges regarding the constitutionality of SEC’s administrative law proceedings. The SEC brought an action against Michelle Cochran in 2016 alleging she “failed to comply with auditing standards in violation of the Securities Exchange Act.” Cochran then challenged this, stating “SEC administrative law judges (“ALJs”) hold their positions in violation of Article II” based on Lucia v. SEC and “SEC violated its own rules, procedures, and deadlines” based on the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment.

The question in SEC v. Cochran is

whether a federal district court has jurisdiction to hear a suit in which the respondent in an ongoing [SEC] administrative proceeding seeks to enjoin that proceeding, based on an alleged constitutional defect in the statutory provisions that govern the removal of the administrative law judge who will conduct the proceeding.

The court is anticipated to hear arguments in these two cases in the fall.