Habeas Standards of Review under 28 U.S.C. Section 2254(d)(1): A Commentary on Statutory Text and Supreme Court Precedent

Abstract

The Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act 1996 (AEDPA) extensively revised the habeas corpus as practiced within the federal judicial system. One those revisions is found in 28 U.S.C. section 2254(d), which limits a federal court's authority grant writs habeas corpus on behalf persons held in state custody. Consistent with this section, a federal court's jurisdictional authority is constrained by three specified standards review, two pertaining errors and one pertaining errors fact. The focus this article is on subsection (d)(1), which creates the critical review standards applicable errors law. A mere seventy-six words in length, subsection (d)(1) is enormously important because it controls all error law access federal habeas review. As a practical matter, the operational scope subsection (d)(1) depends on the interpretation its two key textual components. The first limits the grant federal habeas state court decisions that contravene established Federal law, as determined by the Supreme Careful attention these words is required appreciate the nature and scope the claims that may be asserted on habeas. The second component creates two alternative standards review, one pertaining state court decisions that are contrary to that clearly established federal law, and the other pertaining state court decisions that involve an unreasonable application of that law. This article presents a detailed examination the text section 2254(d)(1) and a close examination all the key Supreme Court precedents interpreting and applying that text, including the quartet section 2254(d)(1) decisions issued during the October 2002 Term the Court. The goal is capture a sense how one might navigate this text in the real world habeas litigation. The author's ultimate conclusion is that the text is more significant than the precedents construing it and that properly understood the text is not the draconian measure many have assumed it be.