Shinn v. Ramirez, 596 U.S. 366 (2022), was a case decided by the United States Supreme Court related to the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996.

In both cases, the new lawyers argued that the failure of the initial public defenders to present evidence that could have been mitigating constituted ineffective counsel.

[1] In Martinez v. Ryan (2012), the Supreme Court held that prisoners may use post-conviction counsel's ineffectiveness as a reason to overcome procedural default.

The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit applied Martinez to rule for Ramirez and Jones on their habeas corpus petitions.

The majority opinion was authored by Clarence Thomas, and joined by John Roberts, Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh, and Amy Coney Barrett, the court's six conservative justices.