The decision, which rejected the "next friend" petition for writ of habeas corpus, is consistent with the majority of Supreme Court decisions related to third party and next friend standing for individuals seeking appeals on behalf of capital defendants. The author analyzes the decision with regard to third party standing and next friend jurisprudence and commends its consistency with the demands of the Constitution's "case or controversy" requirement and Supreme Court precedent. Furthermore, the author argues that the dissenting minority's standing theory is outcome-motivated and would reduce the predictability of future standing decisions, politicize the Court's standing determinations, and debase the value of self-determination for capital defendants. 151 notes