Deborah K. Johnson, Acting Warden, Petitioner v. Tara Sheneva Williams (568 U.S. 289)
U.S. Supreme Court · decided February 20, 2013 · Supreme Court Database (Spaeth)
- Citation
- 568 U.S. 289 · 133 S. Ct. 1088
- Decided
- February 20, 2013
- Term
- October Term 2012
- Vote
- 9–0
- Majority author
- Justice Alito
- Issue area
- Criminal Procedure
- Disposition
- Reversed and remanded
- Outcome
- Petitioning party won
- Ideological direction
- Conservative
Opinion excerpt
Justice Alito delivered the opinion of the Court. The Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (AEDPA) restricts the circumstances under which a federal habeas court may grant relief to a state prisoner whose claim has already been “adjudicated on the merits in State court.” 28 U. S. C. § 2254(d). Specifically, if a claim has been “adjudicated on the merits in State court,” a federal habeas court may not grant relief unless “the adjudication of the claim— “(1) resulted in a decision that was contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States; or “(2) resulted in a decision that was based on an unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the evidence presented in the State court proceeding.” Ibid. Because the requirements of § 2254(d) are difficult to meet, it is important whether a federal claim was “adjudicated on the merits in State court,” and this case requires us to ascertain the meaning of the adjudication-on-the-merits requirement. This issue arises when a defendant convicted in state court attempts to raise a federal claim, either on direct appeal or in a collateral state proceeding, and a state court rules against the defendant and issues an opinion that addresses some issues but does not expressly address the federal claim in question. If this…
Excerpt of a 29,392-character opinion. The full text and citation network load in the interactive viewer above.