Playing some catch-up this morning, I just reviewed the Supreme Court's per curium opinion in Michigan v. Fisher (available here). I actually can't even qualify it as a "front end of habeas" decision since it concerns Fourth Amendment issues and Stone v. Powell precludes habeas review of Fourth Amendment issues (for the most part).
But I wanted to mention the opinion due to the dissent. Stevens dissented, stating that the Court should not interject itself into such a mundane Fourth Amendment case where the ultimate decision was fact-based.
What's most encouraging about the opinion is that Sotomayor joined Stevens dissent. This continues her general pattern so far of taking the more liberal position on criminal/habeas matters (for example, see here).