A Criminal Law Case So Messed Up It Brought Clarence Thomas and KBJ on the Same Side
In this country, law does not always extinguish a claim with force. Sometimes it does so with paperwork.
Last week, the Supreme Court delivered a quiet but extraordinary decision in Parrish v. United States , saving a prisoner's right to appeal from the jaws of bureaucratic ritual. The case turned not on guilt or innocence, nor on liberty or confinement, but on a piece of paper the court already had. A form. Filed once but not again.
Donte Parrish had spent nearly two years in solitary confinement for a prison killing he was ultimately cleared of. He sued for the damage done. But when the district court dismissed his case, the ruling took three months to reach him. It was delayed in the chaos of a prison transfer and the purgatory of overlapping state and federal custody. Once he received the decision, he acted quickly. He filed his notice of appeal and explained the delay, and a court agreed to reopen his window to appeal.
But he didn't file again. He didn't know he had to. The court already had his notice. The government agreed. The record was clear.
Still, the 4th Circuit threw the case out. It was too late for the first filing, too early for the second, and apparently fatal that the same notice had not been filed twice. Parrish had crossed every substantive threshold: jurisdictional, equitable, factual. But he stumbled over form.
Fortunately, last week, the Supreme Court reversed. Justice Sonia Sotomayor, writing for the majority, relied on a long-standing common-law principle known as “relation forward,” the idea that a premature filing can become effective once the triggering event occurs. It is an old rule, rarely remembered outside the federal appellate bar, but one that serves a simple function: to keep the law from embarrassing itself.
The opinion is doctrinally careful and unflashy. But what makes Parrish remarkable is not the legal mechanism. It is the coalition it summoned. Justices Ketanji Brown Jackson and Clarence Thomas joined in competition. Justice Samuel Alito joined the majority. These are jurists who agree on almost nothing. Yet in this moment, they agreed that the law should not close its doors because a prisoner failed to refile a document the court already possessed. The consequence was an opinion that refused to allow justice to be a scavenger hunt and courts to function as paper-collecting machines. That alliance is the moral core of the case. It does not rest on ideology. It remains on something rarer: a shared unwillingness to let process become punishment.
Justice Sotomayor, who wrote the majority opinion as expected, is a jurist with a consistent and compassionate eye toward procedural fairness, especially for incarcerated people. But alongside her stood Justice Alito, who rarely votes in favor of prisoner claims. And then, in competition, came a pairing as rare as it is ideologically implausible: Justices Jackson and Thomas.
This alliance is hardly a signal of philosophical unity. It is a convergence at the outer edge of formality, where even the court's most proceduralist justices seem to grasp that law must not become parody.
For Jackson, the path was clear. Her writing is pragmatic and deeply humane. She argues that the notice Parrish filed could both be treated as a request to reopen and a conditional notice of appeal. No magic words were required. Her concern is one born of realism. How can we expect incarcerated, pro se litigants to navigate a legal system designed to confuse even the trained?
Thomas' agreement is more curious, though not unprincipled. He is often hostile to prisoner claims, but allergic to judicial gamesmanship. What likely drew him in here was the brute symmetry of the thing. A man did everything required. The court had the filing in hand. And still, because of sequence rather than substance, he would be denied. For Thomas, whose originalism often masks a deep commitment to structural clarity, that outcome may have cut too far against the grain.
Alito's vote is perhaps best understood as tactical minimalism. He offered no separate writing. But with the government conceding the appeal should proceed, and the rule's history clear, this case was not worth the fight.
Justice Gorsuch dissented alone. He argued the court should have dismissed the case as improvidently granted, leaving the rule change to the federal rules committee. That no other justice joined him speaks volumes. Even on a court increasingly comfortable with technical denials, there was no appetite to let formality do the work of injustice here.
This was a sleeper-bedfellows opinion not born of shared ideology, but of shared discomfort with absurdity. Each justice arrived at that realization for their own reasons.
Parrish is not just about timing. It is about architecture. It reveals how the legal system treats the procedural rights of incarcerated people not as promises, but as puzzles. The wrong move, the wrong order, the wrong envelope can cost everything.
Parrish's notice of appeal, though untimely under default rules, was filed promptly once he received the judgment. The district court agreed this merited reopening under 28 USC Section 2107(c), a narrow but vital lifeline Congress created for exactly this kind of situation. Still, the 4th Circuit dismissed the appeal because Parrish had not filed another notice after the reopening. Not a new argument. Not a different record. Just the same form. Filed again.
This is what procedural law becomes when detached from reason: a system of exclusions masquerading as order. And it is especially unforgiving in prison, where mail delays, limited legal access, and constant transfers make procedural perfection nearly impossible. For pro se litigants behind bars, legal time is measured not in days, but in the distance between facilities, in the whims of clerks, in the gaps of representation.
The Supreme Court's ruling is more than a footnote. It is a rare assertion that substance matters more than duplication. That courts, who reopened the clock, received the notice, and knew the appeal was coming, cannot pretend to be confused when that duplication did not arrive.
The majority grounded its conclusion in Rule 4 of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure. A notice of appeal is not premature void. It becomes valid once conditions are met. Parrish's notice was not defective. It was early. And early is not fatal.
It would be easy to miss Parrish in a term crowded with more explosive cases. There were no fireworks. No sweeping pronouncements. Just a quiet correction of a system error that should never have happened.
But that is exactly why it matters.
The deeper lesson of Parrish is that the law does not need to be cruel to be devastating. Sometimes it fails not by imposing injustice outright but by insisting that justice be pursued only through ritual. Ritual that burdens most those least equipped to perform it. In those moments, the courts face a choice. They can elevate the rulebook above reason. Or they can remember that the law, at its best, is supposed to serve the people who stand beneath it.
The Supreme Court made the right choice in Parrish . If there is any hope to be drawn from this small, strange case, it is this: Even in a fractured court, even in a legal system that often forgets the humanity of those it processes, there are still moments when grace cuts through. Not as ideology. Not as doctrine. But ace refusal.
A refusal to let form eclipse substance. A refusal to pretend that a man must lose his appeal to preserve the illusion of order. A refusal, in the end, to let law become the very injustice it was meant to restrain.
Sign up for Slate's evening newsletter.
