OPINION: This article may contain commentary which reflects the author's opinion.

Inmates who lose at trial may only appeal the decision if they can demonstrate that reasonable judges could disagree with the decision or that the case should proceed, according to the federal law governing state prisoners’ attempts to seek post-conviction relief in federal courts.

As long as at least one appeals court judge votes to allow them to appeal, the Supreme Court declined Monday to rule on whether prisoners can make that appearance, SCOTUS Blog reported .

In the case of Lance Shockley, who was found guilty and given the death penalty for the 2005 murder of a Missouri highway patrol officer who was looking into a deadly vehicle accident in which Shockley was the driver, Justice Sonia Sotomayor dissented from the denial of review. Sotomayor’s six-page dissent was joined by Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson.

Among the orders from the justices’ private meeting on Friday, March 28, was the brief, unsigned order rejecting review.

Shockley argued that his right to effective legal representation under the Sixth Amendment had been infringed by his trial counsel. Shockley’s attorneys were unaware of the book until after Shockley had been found guilty, despite the fact that the foreman at his trial had self-published a “fictionalized autobiography” that described the protagonist’s attempt to obtain “vengeance” after his wife was killed by a drunk driver but had only received a probationary sentence.

When they finally realized it, prior to Shockley’s sentencing, they did not capitalize on the judge’s recommendation that they gather evidence to back up their motion for a new trial. For instance, they could have asked the foreman if he had discussed the novel with other jurors, which he had.

Shockley went to federal court after his attempts to get relief in the state courts failed. His appeal and post-conviction relief petitions were denied by the district court.

Shockley then appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 8th Circuit, which denied his request for permission to appeal by a vote of 2-1. A second judge joined the dissenting judge in voting for rehearing, but the full court of appeals rejected his request to have that decision reconsidered.

In November, Shockley visited the Supreme Court and requested the justices’ opinions. He contended that the judges’ disagreement over whether to consider his appeal showed that reasonable judges could disagree on how to handle his claim, as required by federal law. He also emphasized that, given that disagreement, his request to appeal would have been granted by four other courts of appeals.

Missouri asked the justices to avoid getting involved in the conflict. According to the argument, Congress and the Supreme Court have “left it to the circuit courts of appeal to decide how they handle applications for certificates of appealability.” It stressed that any discrepancies in the way the courts of appeals handle these applications are “merely differences of administration on a procedural matter” and do not merit the attention of the justices.

The justices rejected Shockley’s request for review after deliberating it at five conferences.

According to her, Sotomayor would have granted review and permitted Shockley’s appeal to proceed. “There are good reasons to think that Congress conditioned the right to an appeal on a single judge’s vote,” Sotomayor argued in her dissent.

According to federal law, she noted, the majority of cases “must be resolved by the appropriate ‘court of appeals,’ or by ‘a majority of the number of judges authorized to constitute a court or panel thereof.'” “A circuit justice or judge can grant permission to appeal.” She pointed out that Congress could have done the same for post-conviction cases.

According to Sotomayor, allowing an appeal to proceed provided that at least one judge votes in favor of granting permission to appeal “also promotes efficiency.” The decision to grant permission “should not be a contentious one,” she wrote, “because appeals should proceed so long as they present a debatable issue.”

It “is difficult to see how an attorney’s decision not to call witnesses in support of a credible mistrial motion, when invited to do so by the presiding judge in a capital murder trial, could fail to constitute ineffective assistance of counsel,” Sotomayor said in response to Shockley’s appeal.

She claimed that when the court of appeals declared that the district court’s opposing ruling was “not even debatable,” it was “plainly” incorrect.

A number of high-profile petitions for review that have been pending for weeks were once again left unanswered by the court.

These petitions challenged Maryland’s ban on military-style assault rifles, Rhode Island’s ban on large-capacity magazines, and the transfer of federal land in Arizona to a mining company that the San Carlos Apache Tribe considers a sacred site.

On Friday, April 4, the justices will reconvene for a private conference. On Monday, April 7, at 9:30 a.m., orders are anticipated from that conference.