High court won't make unanimous jury requirement retroactive

[FBaggins]

15. That's the allegation, but it doesn't appear to be a particularly strong one

The norm is actually that their rulings are not retroactive. Then there was a period of two or three decades where they would be applied retroactively in some circumstances. Then it has been back to the prior standard for the last three or four decades.

The disagreement appears to center on whether a ruling that only applies to a small number of cases in a couple of states can properly be called a "watershed" decision - particularly when the very ruling that created the "watershed" exception appears to say that few, if any, such changes were likely to come again.

The news here seems more driven by Kavanaugh childishly calling out Kagan and Kagan rising to the challenge.