Certification Process for State Capital Counsel Systems
Details
The document's own metadata, straight from the source system.
- Title
- Certification Process for State Capital Counsel Systems
- Posted
- Mar 16, 2026
- Comment period
- Mar 16, 2026 – May 16, 2026
- FR Doc
- 2026-05134
- CFR
- 28 CFR Part 26
Overview
What the public is saying — stance, who's commenting, and the issues they raise.
Stance breakdown
Who commented
Breakdown by commenter type.
Comments over time
Weekly arrivals, stacked by stance.
Support × commenter type
How each type splits across stance.
Issues raised
The docket's canonical issues. Select one to browse its comments.
Position map
Who stands where on each issue?
Every non-silent position is backed by an excerpt from the comment.
Issues shown
Choose up to five.
| Organization | Notice and comment procedures |
|---|
1 organization-typed comment could not be identified.
Explorer
Every mirrored comment — filter by stance, campaign, or issue.
- Jun 9, 2026Laurence KompOpposeAdvocacy📎 Attachment
The Federal Defender for the Western District of Missouri, Capital Habeas Unit, opposes the proposed rule because it eliminates the notice-and-comment period for state certification applications. They argue that this removal violates the Administrative Procedure Act and the Due Process Clause, while also constituting a prior restraint on First Amendment rights.
Read comment → - Jun 9, 2026Laurence KompOpposeGovernment📎 Attachment
The Federal Public Defender for the Western District of Missouri, Capital Habeas Unit, opposes the proposed rule because it eliminates the notice-and-comment period for individual state certification applications. They argue that this removal violates the Administrative Procedure Act and the Due Process Clause, while also constituting a First Amendment prior restraint on speech.
Read comment → - Jun 9, 2026Harry AnsteadOpposeAcademic📎 Attachment
Former Justices of the Florida Supreme Court oppose the Proposed Rule, arguing that it encroaches on state judicial authority and lacks clear definitions and standards. They express concern that the rule's 180-day federal habeas deadline and removal of decertification processes could lead to missed deadlines and prevent the review of cases involving potential innocence.
Read comment →