U.S. Supreme Court

This week the Supreme Court issued three high‑profile decisions: it reinstated Pedro Hernandez’s 2017 murder conviction in the Etan Patz case by a 6–3 per curiam vote, holding that AEDPA limited federal courts’ ability to disturb the jury verdict despite the Second Circuit’s expressed doubts about the reliability of Hernandez’s confessions; it ruled 6–3 in Landor v. Louisiana that RLUIPA does not authorize individual‑capacity money damages against state officers, a Spending‑Clause/contract‑theory opinion by Justice Gorsuch that critics say narrows private remedies for religious‑rights violations; and it cleared the way for ExxonMobil to pursue Title III Helms‑Burton claims against Cuban state firms by removing foreign‑sovereign‑immunity barriers, building on recent Helms‑Burton precedents and potentially reviving a rarely used private right of action.

Mainstream coverage emphasized outcomes and vote splits but often omitted important context available in alternative sources: reporting underplayed Hernandez’s low IQ, history of mental‑illness and lengthy partly un‑Mirandized questioning and the Second Circuit’s “serious doubt” language about his confessions; it also did not note broader legal precedents (e.g., Sossamon v. Texas) or the DOJ’s position and some states’ policy changes after the Landor facts. Independent factual sources show useful context — NCMEC recovery statistics and long‑term recovery data for missing children, the historical scarcity of Helms‑Burton Title III suits (fewer than 50 filed despite thousands of certified claims), and earlier large judgments in some trafficking cases — that help frame the practical impact of the Exxon ruling and the stakes for victims and defendants. No organized contrarian viewpoints were identified in the materials reviewed.