# Irons v. Carey

> Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · July 13, 2007 · 505 F.3d 846

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9612694

## Case

- **Full name:** Carl Merton IRONS, II, Petitioner-Appellee, U.S. Attorney General, Intervenor, v. Tom L. CAREY, Warden, Respondent-Appellant
- **Court:** Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
- **Decided:** July 13, 2007
- **Citations:** 505 F.3d 846; 2007 U.S. App. LEXIS 16703; 2007 WL 2027359
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Reinhardt
- **Judges:** Reinhardt, Noonan, Fernandez
- **Cited by:** 85 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9612694

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- stating that "[t]he Board must determine whether a prisoner is presently too dangerous to be deemed suitable for parole based on the ‘circumstances tending to show unsuitability’ and the 'circumstances tending to show suitability' ” and that "the denial of parole may be predic…

## Opinion text

REINHARDT, Circuit Judge,
concurring specially:
I fully join in Judge Noonan’s sagacious concurrence. Would that it were the law of the land. I add only a couple of thoughts.
After affording federal courts the power to issue writs of habeas corpus in state cases, Congress tells us in AEDPA that we may not grant relief to citizens who are being held in prison in violation of their constitutional rights unless the constitutional error that led to their unlawful conviction or sentence is one that could not have been made by a reasonable jurist. Whether it was reasonable for a state court to misapprehend the dictates of the Constitution in a particular case hardly seems relevant to a citizen’s right not to be imprisoned in violation of the fundamental liberties he is granted by the document that governs our societal structure. Nor is authorizing jurists to determine that a citizen’s detention is unlawful, but that he must remain incarcerated because a magistrate’s error is understandable, consistent with our duty as jurists to enforce the laws and protect the rights of our citizens against arbitrary state action.
Having granted the courts the authority to review state convictions under our habe-as powers, it seems to me inconsistent with our fundamental obligations as judges to require us, except in unusual or exceptional circumstances, to rule for the state regardless of whether it violated the Constitution. Such a mandate appears to me to tell us how to decide a case. That, for the reasons Judge Noonan so well expresses, Congress simply may not do.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9612694. Public record. Not legal advice.