(ORDER LIST: 593 U.S.

MONDAY, MAY 17, 2021

CERTIORARI -- SUMMARY DISPOSITION

20-1047 ALABAMA, ET AL. V. AL CONFERENCE OF NAACP, ET AL.

The petition for a writ of certiorari is granted. The

judgment is vacated, and the case is remanded to the United

States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit with

instructions to dismiss the case as moot. See United States v.

Munsingwear, Inc., 340 U. S. 36 (1950).

ORDERS IN PENDING CASES

20A156 VINKOV, SERGEI V. USDC CD CA

The application for stay addressed to Justice Barrett and

referred to the Court is denied.

20M76 BIZZARRO, ANGELO R. V. FIRST NATIONAL BANK

The motion to direct the Clerk to file a petition for a writ

of certiorari out of time is denied.

20M77 O'NEAL, MATTHEW J. V. UNITED STATES

The motion for leave to file a petition for a writ of

certiorari with the supplemental appendix under seal is granted.

20-429 ) AMERICAN MEDICAL ASSN., ET AL. V. BECERRA, SEC. OF H&HS, ET AL.

)
20-454 ) BECERRA, SEC. OF H&HS, ET AL. V. MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL BALTIMORE
)
20-539 ) OREGON, ET AL. V. BECERRA, SEC. OF H&HS, ET AL.

The Government has filed a letter brief representing that it

will continue enforcing the challenged rule and regulations

outside the State of Maryland for as long as they remain

operative. If further litigation is brought against the

1
 challenged rule and regulations outside of Maryland, the

Government represents that it will either oppose that litigation

on threshold grounds or seek to hold the litigation in abeyance

pending the completion of notice and comment. In light of the

Government’s representations, the motions for leave to intervene

are denied, and the petitions in Nos. 20-429, 20-454, and 20-539

are dismissed pursuant to Rule 46.1. If the Government fails to

enforce the challenged rule and regulations outside of Maryland

prior to the completion of notice and comment, or if litigation

is brought against the challenged rule and regulations outside

of Maryland, any aggrieved party may file an application in this

Court after seeking relief in the appropriate District Court and

Court of Appeals.

Justice Thomas, Justice Alito, and Justice Gorsuch would

grant the motions for leave to intervene and deny the

stipulations to dismiss the petitions.

20-807 LeDURE, BRADLEY V. UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD CO.

The Acting Solicitor General is invited to file a brief in

this case expressing the views of the United States. Justice

Barrett took no part in the consideration of this petition.

CERTIORARI GRANTED

19-1392 DOBBS, MS HEALTH OFFICER, ET AL. V. JACKSON WOMEN'S HEALTH, ET AL.

The petition for a writ of certiorari is granted limited to

Question 1 presented by the petition.

20-1009 SHINN, DIR., AZ DOC V. RAMIREZ, DAVID M.

20-1143 BADGEROW, DENISE A. V. WALTERS, GREG, ET AL.

The petitions for writs of certiorari are granted.

2
 CERTIORARI DENIED

20-101 HARRIS, LLOYD V. MARYLAND

20-718 REYES-ROMERO, MARIO N. V. UNITED STATES

20-745 LECHUGA, ISMAEL V. UNITED STATES

20-773 ) KHAN, NAZIR, ET AL. V. MERIT MEDICAL SYSTEMS, ET AL.

)
20-1363 ) MERIT MEDICAL SYSTEMS V. KHAN, NAZIR, ET AL.

20-791 EGLISE BAPTISTE BETHANIE, ET AL. V. SEMINOLE TRIBE OF FL, ET AL.

20-895 SELDIN, SCOTT A., ET AL. V. ESTATE OF SILVERMAN, ET AL.

20-937 ANDREWS, ROBERT V. NEW JERSEY

20-1048 MOORE, STEVENSON R. O. V. GARLAND, ATT'Y GEN.

20-1061 DANTZLER, INC., ET AL. V. S2 SERVICES PUERTO RICO, ET AL.

20-1095 HAWS, DARIUS W. V. IDAHO

20-1110 SANDOZ INC., ET AL. V. IMMUNEX CORP., ET AL.

20-1116 SEWARD, ANTHONY V. UNITED STATES

20-1130 ERICSSON INC., ET AL. V. TCL COMMUNICATION, ET AL.

20-1159 VT NAT. TEL. CO. V. VT DEPT. OF TAXES

20-1213 MIGNOTT, MARSHA W., ET AL. V. GARDINER, BRIAN

20-1219 CURRY, CARLINE M. V. MACKENZIE, DOUGLAS

20-1221 OCHOA, MICHAEL R. V. RUBIN, ERIN

20-1231 SMITH, JENNIFER V. FL A & M UNIV.

20-1234 BAPTISTE, MARIANNE, ET AL. V. MA OFFICE OF HEALTH, ET AL.

20-1236 ANDERSON, JASON A. V. CLARKE, DIR., VA DOC

20-1242 ENDENCIA, FRANCES V. ARCE, MARIO

20-1248 KINZY, KYLE, ET UX. V. FIRST TENNESSEE BANK, N.A.

20-1251 ANDERSON, CLAUD V. HARBOR BANK OF MD

20-1253 STRINGER, CHARLES L. V. STORESONLINE, INC., ET AL.

20-1254 RAO, PADMA V. MIDLAND TRUST CO.

20-1257 JENSEN, AARON V. WEST JORDAN CITY, UT

3
20-1265 MOORE, IVAN R., ET AL. V. MARTIN-BRAGG, KIMBERLY

20-1273 OLSTOWSKI, FRANEK V. PETROLEUM ANALYZER CO.

20-1275 VESUVIUS USA CORP., ET AL. V. PHILLIPS, ROYSTON

20-1277 MEYER, RICHARD V. KENTUCKY

20-1291 WPEM, LLC V. SOTI INC.

20-1299 CLARK, ERIC S. V. WILLIAMSBURG, KS

20-1303 PAPPAS, ANTHONY V. LORINTZ, JOSEPH, ET AL.

20-1310 McCANN, GENET V. WOLD, DOUGLAS J., ET AL.

20-1316 FLING, DANIEL V. USPS, ET AL.

20-1329 TRAYVILLA, MACARIETO I., ET AL. V. JAPAN AIRLINES, ET AL.

20-1335 A. P. V. VERMONT

20-1355 JOHNSON, DAVID M. V. YELLEN, SEC. OF TREASURY

20-1368 ROLLO-CARLSON, CYNTHIA V. UNITED STATES

20-1408 FERNANDEZ, KEITH V. WHARTON SCHOOL, ET AL.

20-1411 STARLINE TOURS OF HOLLYWOOD V. EHM PRODUCTIONS, ET AL.

20-1414 UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC., ET AL. V. RAZAK, ALI, ET AL.

20-1416 NESKE, DOROTHY, ET VIR V. NEW YORK CITY DEPT. OF ED.

20-1418 CIRINO, SEPIDEH V. OCWEN LOAN SERVICING LLC, ET AL.

20-1422 76 ORINDA V. MORALEZ, FRANCISCA

20-1423 GRUNDSTEIN, ROBERT V. VT BD. OF BAR EXAMINERS

20-1427 PACHECO PACHECO, LEVIAN V. UNITED STATES

20-1428 NOERGAARD, TAMMY V. NOERGAARD, CHRISTIAN

20-1439 LOYD, PHILLIP D. V. UNITED STATES

20-1441 ) BEECHER, GEORGE V. NEW JERSEY

)
20-1442 ) STOVEKEN, ANDREW V. NEW JERSEY

20-1445 FOREMAN, NATHAN R. V. TEXAS

20-1449 PERSAUD, HAROLD V. UNITED STATES

20-1463 MORTGAGE INVESTORS CORP., ET AL. V. U.S., EX REL. BIBBY, ET AL.

4
20-1470 JEFFREY, THOMAS A. V. PENNSYLVANIA

20-1478 SAUL, COMM'R, SOCIAL SEC. V. PROBST, LISA, ET AL.

20-6387 WOODARD, DARRIN B. V. UNITED STATES

20-6626 MASALMANI, IHAB V. MICHIGAN

20-6743 DUSSARD, NEIL V. UNITED STATES

20-6808 TRAFICANTE, THOMAS V. UNITED STATES

20-6822 BERRYMAN, RODNEY V. DAVIS, WARDEN

20-6837 OWENS, JACOB R. V. UNITED STATES

20-6840 DARRINGTON, FREDERICK D. V. UNITED STATES

20-6841 JONES, STEVEN V. UNITED STATES

20-6923 ABBATE, CHRISTOPHER J. V. UNITED STATES

20-6972 JENKINS, MARK A. V. DUNN, COMM'R, AL DOC

20-7030 LOVE, DEVARON A. V. UNITED STATES

20-7071 RUSSELL, PETE V. LUMPKIN, DIR., TX DCJ

20-7205 FRANQUI, LEONARDO V. FLORIDA

20-7228 POOLER, LEROY V. FLORIDA

20-7312 PARKER, RAEVON T. V. PICKENS, JOHN, ET AL.

20-7351 SHAW, SHEENA V. SACRAMENTO CTY. SHERIFF, ET AL.

20-7356 SPIVEY, ERON M. V. TEXAS

20-7357 JOHNSON, RAYMOND E. V. OKLAHOMA

20-7358 HARRIS, MARIANN V. NEVADA

20-7371 MARSH, CHASE A. V. FLEMING, WARDEN

20-7373 PAYNE, CHRISTOPHER M. V. ARIZONA

20-7375 WOOTEN, CHRISTOPHER V. PARKER, SHERIFF, ET AL.

20-7376 MARTIN, HOWARD E. V. OHIO

20-7379 MERCADO, MIGUEL A. V. FLORIDA

20-7391 TURNER, MARCUS A. V. GRAY, WARDEN

20-7392 WOODFORK, JAMES J. V. OKLAHOMA

5
20-7396 CALHOUN, MARLINA V. WALMART STORES EAST, LP

20-7397 KING, WILLIAM R. V. WINN, WARDEN

20-7403 LUNA, RICHARD V. TEXAS

20-7407 SOLAR-SOMOHANO, ALBERTO V. COCA-COLA CO., ET AL.

20-7411 JACKSON, DOUGLAS C. V. BEREAN, LEAH, ET AL.

20-7420 KILMAN, TOBI V. WILLIAMS, DIR., CO DOC

20-7424 DOUGLAS, ALAN V. SUPERIOR COURT OF CA

20-7426 WILLIAMS, RUBIN L. V. OHIO

20-7432 LUCIEN, KEVIN L. V. TEXAS

20-7433 CHAUDRON, RANDY P. V. TEXAS

20-7434 DAWES, WILLIAM V. CALIFORNIA

20-7435 KNICKERBOCKER, STEVEN G. V. WISCONSIN, ET AL.

20-7436 KNIGHT, FREDERICK D. V. FLORIDA

20-7440 SALAZAR, PAUL V. TEXAS

20-7443 SALU, ROTIMI, ET AL. V. MIRANDA, DENISE

20-7455 JONES, JEROMEY G. V. MONTANA

20-7462 KIRKLAND, ANTHONY V. OHIO

20-7463 JACKSON, CARLOS L. V. FLORIDA

20-7466 BURGETT, CHARLES L. V. GENERAL STORE NO TWO, ET AL.

20-7470 GUERRERO, PABLO R. V. NEVADA

20-7478 LEWIS, PAUL E. V. SOUTHERN CT STATE UNIV., ET AL.

20-7485 COOPER, WILBERN W. V. CHAPMAN, WARDEN

20-7512 COX, FORREST R. V. NEBRASKA

20-7513 JONES, LORETTA V. NYC POLICE DEPT., ET AL.

20-7534 TIJERINO-SEVILLA, LUIS A. V. GARLAND, ATT'Y GEN.

20-7539 JAMES, SCHENVISKY V. CAMPBELL, WARDEN

20-7557 NORA, WENDY A. V. OFFICE OF LAWYER REGULATION

20-7565 UDOH, EMEM U. V. GARLAND, ATT'Y GEN.

6
20-7566 CHAILLA, FLORENCE, ET VIR V. SAUL, ANDREW M., ET AL.

20-7569 HUNT, DEIDRE M. V. FLORIDA

20-7573 HARRIS, MERRICKIO D. V. NEBRASKA

20-7585 BOWSER, CHARLES D. V. KANSAS

20-7587 BRANDON, MICHELLE V. SAUL, ANDREW M.

20-7607 BURRIS, PERRY V. MASON, SUPT., MAHANOY, ET AL.

20-7623 DRAKE, MICHAEL E. V. PENNSYLVANIA

20-7625 ROSS, JAMES A. V. MYRICK, JOHN, ET AL.

20-7641 HAWKINS, BRIAN V. SHOOP, WARDEN

20-7644 HANSEN, SKIP V. KENTUCKY

20-7664 GREEN, JESSIE W. V. CHAPMAN, WARDEN

20-7672 GARCIA, JAMES M. V. UNITED STATES

20-7673 SLITER-MATIAS, ATTICUS V. UNITED STATES

20-7675 STROMING, JOHN G. V. UNITED STATES

20-7677 FUENTES-MORALES, JUAN M. V. UNITED STATES

20-7679 LUCAS, TROY A. V. UNITED STATES

20-7680 BEASLEY, JONATHAN V. UNITED STATES

20-7684 GLENN, RICHARD S. V. UNITED STATES

20-7689 WILMORE, HERVE V. UNITED STATES

20-7697 BERCKMANN, MATTHEW V. UNITED STATES

20-7702 SMITH, COVIA D. V. UNITED STATES

20-7703 ROBINSON, GARY L. V. UNITED STATES

20-7705 SERRANO, MARCO A. V. UNITED STATES

20-7707 LEDFORD, CHARLES M. V. UNITED STATES

20-7708 CASTRO ORELLANA, JOSE N. V. UNITED STATES

20-7709 HENRY, ALVIN V. UNITED STATES

20-7716 MOSLEY, MILTON V. UNITED STATES

20-7723 DAVIS, DANGELO V. UNITED STATES

7
20-7726 DAVIS, JAMES R. V. MUSSELWHITE, WARDEN

20-7728 SMEATON, KEITH V. UNITED STATES

20-7729 ROSE, CASEY V. UNITED STATES

20-7730 BROOKS, FENDI V. UNITED STATES

20-7737 FLEMING, MARJUAN S. V. UNITED STATES

20-7738 GRANT, ELMER W. V. UNITED STATES

20-7743 MILLIRON, WILLIAM V. UNITED STATES

20-7744 PRICE, MILLARD V. DELAWARE

20-7745 MYLES, RONALD R. V. UNITED STATES

20-7746 MENDOZA, MIGUEL A. V. UNITED STATES

20-7755 VEASEY, WILBERT J. V. UNITED STATES

20-7764 CARTER, JAMIL S. V. WINN, WARDEN

20-7767 ELLISON, ZONTA T. V. UNITED STATES

20-7773 JAIYEOLA, GANIYU A. V. TOYOTA MOTOR CORP., ET AL.

20-7775 SPANN, FITA E. V. UNITED STATES

20-7779 SHRADER, THOMAS C. V. UNITED STATES

20-7784 GOINS, BRYAN K. V. UNITED STATES

20-7785 GRAHAM, KEVINO V. UNITED STATES

20-7786 McCASKILL, OBIDIAH V. INCH, SEC., FL DOC, ET AL.

20-7793 LIRA ESTRADA, EDGAR I. V. UNITED STATES

20-7795 HUTCHINSON, ANTWAN L. V. UNITED STATES

20-7801 HERMAN, CODY L. V. UNITED STATES

20-7803 HALL, JONATHAN S. V. DELAWARE

20-7807 CLARK, WOODROW A. V. UNITED STATES

20-7838 VARGAS, EDWARD M. V. KOENIG, WARDEN

The petitions for writs of certiorari are denied.

20-888 ALI, ABDUL R. V. BIDEN, PRESIDENT OF U.S., ET AL.

The petition for a writ of certiorari is denied. Justice

8
 Gorsuch and Justice Kavanaugh took no part in the consideration

or decision of this petition.

20-1004 COLLIER, ROBERT V. DALLAS COUNTY HOSP. DIST.

The motion of Howard University School of Law Human and

Civil Rights Clinic for leave to file a brief as amicus curiae

is granted. The petition for a writ of certiorari is denied.

20-1069 JANSSEN PHARMACEUTICALS, ET AL. V. A. Y., ET AL.

The petition for a writ of certiorari is denied. Justice

Alito took no part in the consideration or decision of this

petition.

20-1227 WHITEHEAD, DAVID L. V. NETFLIX, INC., ET AL.

The petition for a writ of certiorari is denied. Justice

Breyer took no part in the consideration or decision of this

petition.

20-1247 DIX, GERALD V. EDELMAN FINANCIAL, ET AL.

The petition for a writ of certiorari is denied. Justice

Barrett took no part in the consideration or decision of this

petition.

20-1317 MACINTYRE, HOLLY V. JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A.

The petition for a writ of certiorari is denied. Justice

Gorsuch took no part in the consideration or decision of this

petition.

20-6448 DAVIS, EUGENE V. QUAY, WARDEN

20-6484 TYLER, WILLIE V. UNITED STATES

The petitions for writs of certiorari are denied. Justice

Alito took no part in the consideration or decision of these

petitions.

9
20-7445 ALLEN, DERRICK M. V. SUNTRUST BANK, ET AL.

The motion of petitioner for leave to proceed in forma

pauperis is denied, and the petition for a writ of certiorari is

dismissed. See Rule 39.8.

20-7550 BACCUS, JOHN R. V. SC DOC

The motion of petitioner for leave to proceed in forma

pauperis is denied, and the petition for a writ of certiorari is

dismissed. See Rule 39.8. As the petitioner has repeatedly

abused this Court's process, the Clerk is directed not to accept

any further petitions in noncriminal matters from petitioner

unless the docketing fee required by Rule 38(a) is paid and the

petition is submitted in compliance with Rule 33.1. See Martin

v. District of Columbia Court of Appeals, 506 U. S. 1 (1992)

(per curiam).

20-7693 WILKINS, KEENAN G. V. JOKSCH, C., ET AL.

The motion of petitioner for leave to proceed in forma

pauperis is denied, and the petition for a writ of certiorari is

dismissed. See Rule 39.8.

20-7694 ESCOBAR DE JESUS, EUSEBIO V. UNITED STATES

The petition for a writ of certiorari is denied. Justice

Kagan took no part in the consideration or decision of this

petition.

HABEAS CORPUS DENIED

20-7821 IN RE JOHN A. TOTH

20-7833 IN RE DEMARCUS WRIGHT

The petitions for writs of habeas corpus are denied.

MANDAMUS DENIED

20-1266 IN RE IVAN R. MOORE, ET AL.

10
20-7518 IN RE JACK STONE

20-7753 IN RE DERRICK A. JOHNSON

20-7789 IN RE MICHAEL K. CIACCI

The petitions for writs of mandamus are denied.

20-1297 IN RE BARBARA RILEY

20-7352 IN RE HENRY L. RUDOLPH

The petitions for writs of mandamus and/or prohibition are

denied.

20-7481 IN RE RAVI S. VAIDYANATHAN

The petition for a writ of mandamus is denied. The Chief

Justice took no part in the consideration or decision of this

petition.

20-7733 IN RE ANTWOYN T. SPENCER

The motion of petitioner for leave to proceed in forma

pauperis is denied, and the petition for a writ of mandamus is

dismissed. See Rule 39.8.

REHEARINGS DENIED

19-8464 MITCHELL, JAMAL V. UNITED STATES

20-959 THIGPEN, ANGELA V. BD. OF TRUSTEES OF LOCAL 807

20-972 IBEABUCHI, IKEMEFULA C. V. EGGLESTON, DIR. OF OPERATION

20-1228 JAYE, CHRIS A. V. USDC ND IA

20-5814 WEBB, ANTHONY K. V. LUMPKIN, DIR., TX DCJ

20-6007 WRIGHT, WILLIAM H. V. UNITED STATES

20-6039 McBRIDE, EARL V. LUMPKIN, DIR., TX DCJ

20-6138 WALKER, JERRY V. KELLEY, DIR., AR DOC

20-6161 BRUNSON, JOEY L. V. UNITED STATES

20-6361 DAVIS, ROBERT L. V. INCH, SEC., FL DOC, ET AL.

20-6395 GRIFFITH, HOWARD V. NEW YORK

11
20-6440 TOSCANO, BENJAMIN K. V. ADAM, NANCY, ET AL.

20-6510 FORD, LAWRENCE W. V. BUDDE, ANITA L.

20-6673 DIEHL, DAVID A. V. UNITED STATES

20-6735 McCLUNG, FRANK A., ET UX. V. ESTEVEZ, ELIA E.

20-6751 WALDREP, ROGER D. V. SHINN, DIR., AZ DOC, ET AL.

20-6881 DOUGLAS, ALAN V. ZIMMERMAN, NANCY, ET AL.

20-6882 ZOU, BO V. LINDE ENGINEERING NORTH AMERICA

20-6999 BOUNCHANH, KANNHA V. WA HEALTH CARE AUTH., ET AL.

The petitions for rehearing are denied.

20-6835 HAMILTON, OTHA S. V. REAGLE, WARDEN

The petition for rehearing is denied. Justice Barrett took

no part in the consideration or decision of this petition.

20-5808 IN RE ROGER LIVERMAN

The motion for leave to file a petition for rehearing is

denied.

12
 Cite as: 593 U. S. ____ (2021) 1

Statement of SOTOMAYOR, J.

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

JAMES CALVERT v. TEXAS
ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE COURT OF
CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TEXAS
No. 20–701. Decided May 17, 2021

The petition for a writ of certiorari is denied.

Statement of JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR respecting the denial
of certiorari.
Petitioner James Calvert was convicted in Texas of mur-
dering his ex-wife. At sentencing, the State called David
Logan, a former corrections officer. Logan testified in detail
about an incident in which an inmate stabbed him in the
eye with a pencil, leaving him blind in that eye. The State
introduced a medical scan showing that the pencil traveled
four inches into Logan’s brain before coming to rest against
an artery. Logan was unsure why the inmate attacked him,
but testified that if an inmate “ ‘has it on his mind to hurt
you, there’s nothing you can do.’ ” 2019 WL 5057268, *58
(Tex. Crim. App. 2019).
You may be asking what Calvert had to do with this grue-
some incident. The answer is nothing. The State nonethe-
less argued that Logan’s testimony and brain scan were ad-
missible because they revealed “an inmate’s opportunity for
violence within the penitentiary.” 164 Record 20. “Do you
think they can be controlled in the pen, these inmates?” the
State rhetorically asked the jury in its closing argument.
171 id., at 128. “Then you tell me why David Logan got a
pencil stabbed into his brain.” Ibid. “Because of what hap-
pened to [Logan],” the State argued, Calvert “should get the
death penalty.” 164 id., at 19. At the jury’s recommenda-
tion, the trial court sentenced Calvert to death.
Calvert appealed. He argued that admission of the evi-
dence about the inmate’s attack on Logan violated his right
2 CALVERT v. TEXAS

Statement of SOTOMAYOR, J.

to individualized sentencing under the Eighth Amend-

ment.1 See Woodson v. North Carolina, 428 U. S. 280, 303
(1976) (plurality opinion) (capital sentencing proceedings
must “allow the particularized consideration of relevant as-
pects of the [defendant’s] character and record”). The Texas
Court of Criminal Appeals disagreed, holding that “[t]he in-
dividualized sentencing requirement is satisfied when the
jury is able to consider and give full effect to a defendant’s
mitigating evidence.” 2019 WL 5057268, *59. That re-
quirement was satisfied here, the court concluded, because
Calvert was not “prevented from presenting relevant miti-
gating evidence.” Ibid.
Calvert now asks this Court to grant certiorari.2 In my
view, Calvert raises a serious argument that the State’s re-
liance on a graphic instance of violence by an unrelated in-
mate to prove that he posed a future danger deprived him
of his right to an individualized sentencing.
Despite this weighty question, I do not dissent from the
decision to deny Calvert’s petition, because I agree that his
claim does not meet the Court’s traditional criteria for
——————
1 Calvert also argued that admission of the evidence about the inmate’s

attack on Logan violated the Texas Rules of Evidence. The Texas Court
of Criminal Appeals agreed, but found the error harmless “because the
State presented considerable admissible evidence of [Calvert’s] future
dangerousness and the prison conditions in which he would be confined.”
2019 WL 5057268, *59 (2019).
2 Calvert raises another claim based on courtroom deputies adminis-

tering a 50,000-volt electric shock to him because of his failure to follow

the court’s rule that he stand when addressing the court. While the
Texas Court of Criminal Appeals agreed with Calvert that the incident
violated due process, it denied relief, concluding that the error was not
structural because it occurred outside of the presence of the jury and did
not affect Calvert’s presumption of innocence or ability to participate in
his defense at trial. Id., at *9–*11. Although it may be appropriate for
this Court to defer to the lower court’s factbound prejudice determina-
tion, I underscore how astonishing it is for a court to direct deputies to
shock a defendant during trial. If there could ever be an excuse for such
violence, enforcing courtroom decorum would not be it.
 Cite as: 593 U. S. ____ (2021) 3

Statement of SOTOMAYOR, J.

granting certiorari. See this Court’s Rule 10. The legal

question Calvert presents is complex and would benefit
from further percolation in the lower courts prior to this
Court granting review. Certainly, the law is not clear
enough to warrant this Court summarily reversing the
Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, as Calvert requests. See
Kansas v. Carr, 577 U. S. 108, 123 (2016) (declining to
“shoehorn . . . into the Eighth Amendmen[t]” a claim that
the jury considered evidence that “clouded [its] considera-
tion of mitigating evidence,” and suggesting such claims
should be brought under the Due Process Clause); see also
Sears v. Upton, 561 U. S. 945, 946 (2010) (per curiam) (sum-
marily reversing because constitutional error was “plain
from the face of the state court’s opinion”).
I write separately to emphasize that the denial of Cal-
vert’s petition should not be construed as a rejection of his
claim on the merits.3 Nor does the denial of certiorari sug-
gest the Court approves of the State’s tactics. As the court
below recognized, the gruesome attack on Officer Logan
“had no connection” to Calvert. 2019 WL 5057268, *58. In-
deed, the State introduced no evidence that Calvert “had
attempted to attack or physically injure anyone” while in-
carcerated. Ibid. The State asked the jury to sentence Cal-
vert to death in part because of a different person’s violent
conduct that had nothing to do with Calvert. It succeeded.
Although this case does not meet this Court’s traditional
criteria for certiorari, it still stands as a grim reminder that
courts should rigorously scrutinize how States prove that a
person should face the ultimate penalty. Juries must have
——————
3 In addition to Calvert’s Eighth Amendment claim, the State’s conduct

here may implicate due process. The introduction of irrelevant evidence

can “so infec[t] the sentencing proceeding with unfairness as to render
the jury’s imposition of the death penalty a denial of due process.” Ro-
mano v. Oklahoma, 512 U. S. 1, 12 (1994). The Court’s decision today
should not be viewed as a rejection of the merits of that potential claim,
either.
4 CALVERT v. TEXAS

Statement of SOTOMAYOR, J.

a clear view of the “uniquely individual human beings” they

are sentencing to death, Woodson, 428 U. S., at 304 (plural-
ity opinion), not one tainted by irrelevant facts about other
people’s crimes. The Constitution and basic principles of
justice require nothing less.