UPDATE 2: The transcript is available.

UPDATE (10:35am PST Tuesday): Lyle Denniston reports at SCOTUSblog that the jurisdictional question was indeed a major portion of the argument. We will wait for the transcript before commenting on the Teague v. AEDPA issue.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The long awaited argument in Burton v. Waddington is tomorrow, and the high court will consider the retroactive application of Blakely v. Washington to sentences already affirmed on appeal when that decision came down. Here are links to CJLF's press release, briefs in the case (including ours), and Lyle Denniston's comments on SCOTUSblog.

Press coverage may be limited as there might be other newsworthy events tomorrow, but the Court's same-day transcript should be available, and we will post a link here.

Here are a couple of things to look for. First, how much interest is there in the question of whether the Court even has jurisdiction of this apparently successive petition? To rule that this petition is not successive would be a massive change in habeas corpus law. Yet petitioner is acting like it's no big deal, not mentioning it in his main brief and devoting only four pages to it in the reply.

Second, will petitioner stick to his argument that Blakely was simultaneously not "new" and "watershed"? That is, can he say with a straight face that Blakely changed nothing and Blakely changed everything? Which Justice will pounce first if he does?

Third, will Justice Scalia remember that he wrote, on the very same day he wrote Blakely, "it is unlikely that any [rule qualifying for retroactivity on habeas] has yet to emerge."