The Supreme Court issued its opinion today in the final outstanding habeas case from this term, Cullen v. Pinholster.
In an opinion by Thomas, the Court, unsurprisingly, reversed a habeas grant from the Ninth Circuit. And it's a terrible opinion for habeas petitioners.
The lineup of judges is kind of a mess though. After looking through the individual decisions, seven judges agree with Thomas on the main procedural question of the factual scope of a federal court's inquiry on a habeas claim under 2254(d). Thomas's opinion restricts it just to the facts that were available to the state court at the time of the state court decision. Although I am not sure about this, the decision also seems to take some steps in explaining the difference between 2254(d) and 2254(e), which both concern state court factual findings.
Sotomayor dissented from that part of the opinion. But no one technically joined her. Kagan and Ginsburg joined her dissent, but only on the question of whether habeas should have been granted. They joined Thomas on the procedural question.
Except there's Alito. He wrote a concurring opinion in which he agreed with Sotomayor's dissent on the procedural question. But his opinion is a concurring opinion. I don't really understand why her opinion is a complete dissent and his is a concurring opinion when he disagreed with the majority. It may be because he does not believe the Court should have even addressed the issue. But I am not sure.
Breyer issued a concurring opinion, but joined the majority on the procedural question. He simply wanted to clarify when 2254(e) has relevance in a habeas case. I think.
It's confusing.
But that doesn't change the fact that it's bad all the way around for petitioners. When I get a chance to take a closer look, I'll give further thoughts.
Comments