Berry v. United States
No. 25-7026 · October Term 2026 · Judicial Power
Before oral argument the model reads the case's structure and its docket: amicus briefs by side, the Solicitor General's position, the parties' types, the issue area, and which way the lower court ruled, against each justice's record on all of those. That separates the nine, and the table shows it. It does not yet separate cases well enough for a case-level number: the calibration chosen for that arm caps how sure nine correlated votes may make a case, so case-level odds wait for the transcript.
The case
Corey Duran Berry is appealing a lower court's decision in a federal habeas corpus proceeding, which was affirmed by the Eleventh Circuit. The core issue is whether a certificate of appealability (COA) should be granted when circuit precedent is split on the legal question the petitioner wishes to raise. The Supreme Court must determine if a COA is appropriate under these circumstances, which would allow Berry's appeal to proceed.
- The central legal question is the interpretation of 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2), specifically what constitutes a "substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right" when circuit courts disagree.
- This case will clarify the standard for granting a certificate of appealability, impacting how federal habeas petitions are reviewed on appeal.
- The Court will consider the weight given to conflicting circuit precedents when assessing whether "reasonable jurists could debate" a petition's resolution.
- The decision will affect access to appellate review for prisoners seeking to challenge their convictions or sentences in federal court.
AI brief written by gemini-2.5-flash from the questions presented and the Oyez facts on 2026-10-29. Commentary only; it is not an input to the model.
Question presented, as filed
Under the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (AEDPA), an appeal may not be taken from a final order in a federal habeas proceeding unless a circuit judge or justice issues a "certificate of appealability" (COA). 28 U.S.C.§ 2253(c (1). A COA may issue only if the prisoner makes a "substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right." 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). To do so, the prisoner must show that "reasonable jurists could debate" whether the petition should have been resolved in a different manner. Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, A484 (2000). The question presented is: Whether a certificate of appealability under 28 U.S.C. § 2253 should be granted where the issue that the petitioner seeks to raise on appeal has been resolved against him by binding circuit precedent but has been resolved in his favor by another circuit.
The nine
Each justice's predicted vote and the record behind it: how often they have voted for the petitioner overall, in Judicial Power cases, and when the lower court ruled conservative; and, once argued, how many questions they put to each side (the side a justice questions more tends to lose their vote). The note under each row is the AI brief's reading, commentary rather than model input.
| Justice | Predicted | Overall | This issue | Lower court conservative | At argument |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
John G. Roberts Republican appointee · since OT2005 Chief Justice Roberts often emphasizes judicial restraint and adherence to established legal frameworks, which could lead him to consider the clarity and consistency of the COA standard. His jurisprudence frequently seeks to maintain the integrity and efficiency of the judicial process. | 66% Berry | 68% for the petitioner · 1,512 votes | 69% Judicial Power · 197 votes | 61% lower court conservative · 734 votes | not yet argued |
Clarence Thomas Republican appointee · since OT1991 Justice Thomas typically favors a strict textualist approach to statutory interpretation, which would lead him to closely examine the language of AEDPA and the COA requirements. He often prioritizes finality in criminal proceedings and deference to state court judgments. | 54% Berry | 59% for the petitioner · 2,801 votes | 57% Judicial Power · 388 votes | 43% lower court conservative · 1,365 votes | not yet argued |
Samuel A. Alito Republican appointee · since OT2005 Justice Alito generally takes a conservative stance on criminal justice issues, often emphasizing deference to state courts and the finality of convictions. His approach to statutory interpretation tends to be textualist, focusing on the plain meaning of the law. | 54% Berry | 62% for the petitioner · 1,469 votes | 65% Judicial Power · 190 votes | 48% lower court conservative · 722 votes | not yet argued |
Sonia Sotomayor Democratic appointee · since OT2009 Justice Sotomayor often champions the rights of criminal defendants and access to justice, which could lead her to favor a more expansive interpretation of the COA standard to ensure meaningful appellate review. She frequently considers the practical impact of legal standards on individuals. | 69% Berry | 61% for the petitioner · 1,192 votes | 58% Judicial Power · 149 votes | 76% lower court conservative · 594 votes | not yet argued |
Elena Kagan Democratic appointee · since OT2010 Justice Kagan often seeks to find common ground and pragmatic solutions, and her jurisprudence reflects a careful consideration of statutory text and legislative intent. She may consider the implications of a restrictive COA standard on the uniformity of federal law. | 69% Berry | 63% for the petitioner · 1,072 votes | 61% Judicial Power · 137 votes | 75% lower court conservative · 543 votes | not yet argued |
Neil M. Gorsuch Republican appointee · since OT2016 Justice Gorsuch is known for his textualist and originalist approach to legal interpretation, which would lead him to scrutinize the precise wording of AEDPA's COA provision. He has also expressed concerns about the scope of federal habeas review. | 69% Berry | 65% for the petitioner · 592 votes | 69% Judicial Power · 83 votes | 59% lower court conservative · 286 votes | not yet argued |
Brett M. Kavanaugh Republican appointee · since OT2018 Justice Kavanaugh often emphasizes adherence to precedent and a balanced approach to statutory interpretation. He may consider the need for a clear and consistent standard for COAs while also acknowledging the importance of appellate review. | 63% Berry | 69% for the petitioner · 498 votes | 73% Judicial Power · 62 votes | 62% lower court conservative · 244 votes | not yet argued |
Amy Coney Barrett Republican appointee · since OT2020 Justice Barrett's jurisprudence often emphasizes textualism and originalism, and she may focus on the plain meaning of the COA statute. She generally seeks to apply legal rules consistently and predictably. | 58% Berry | 66% for the petitioner · 360 votes | 71% Judicial Power · 49 votes | 60% lower court conservative · 178 votes | not yet argued |
Ketanji Brown Jackson Democratic appointee · since OT2022 Justice Jackson often brings a perspective that considers the practical implications of legal rules, particularly for criminal defendants and those seeking access to justice. She may be inclined to interpret the COA standard in a way that facilitates meaningful appellate review when there is a circuit split. | 69% Berry | 59% for the petitioner · 244 votes | 60% Judicial Power · 37 votes | 80% lower court conservative · 127 votes | not yet argued |
Rates are each justice's own participation record in the Supreme Court Database, the same history the model trains on; a rate on fewer than five votes is not shown. The predicted vote is VotePredictor SCOTUS' per-justice probability from the structural arm: the docket, the parties, the issue and the lower court, with no transcript yet.
Every call this term, justice by justice · how the model is built and its record. Data as of 2026-10-29.