{"id":2564,"date":"2020-12-15T14:23:33","date_gmt":"2020-12-15T22:23:33","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.crimeandconsequences.blog\/?p=2564"},"modified":"2020-12-15T14:23:33","modified_gmt":"2020-12-15T22:23:33","slug":"usca9-chastised-on-aedpa-yet-again","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.crimeandconsequences.blog\/?p=2564","title":{"rendered":"USCA9 Chastised on AEDPA Yet Again"},"content":{"rendered":"

One year ago this Friday, Judge Carlos Bea of the Ninth Circuit warned his colleagues they were headed for reversal in Kayer<\/em> v. Ryan<\/em><\/a>, No. 09-99027: “Like clockwork, practically on a yearly basis since the Millennium, we have forced the Supreme Court to correct our inability to apply the proper legal standards under the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (‘AEDPA’\u201d).”<\/p>\n

Sure enough, yesterday the Supreme Court summarily reversed<\/a>, saying “the Court of Appeals clearly violated this Court\u2019s AEDPA jurisprudence.”<\/p>\n

Some federal judges just can’t get over the fact that they no longer have authority to overturn state court judgments merely because they disagree with the state judges’ decision on the merits of a genuinely debatable federal question. The Ninth Circuit, in particular, became notorious in the 1980s and early 1990s for overturning state court judgments in decisions that were ultimately found to be wrong by the Supreme Court.<\/p>\n

When the constitution or the legislative authority gives one court jurisdiction to hear an appeal<\/em> from the decision of another court, it effectively makes the former a higher court and the latter a lower one. On questions of law, the higher court hearing an appeal generally decides the question according to its own judgment, with no deference to the decision of the lower court. (Questions of fact are decided on a different standard.)<\/p>\n

Only one federal court has ever had appellate jurisdiction in this sense over state courts. That one is the U.S. Supreme Court. The federal district courts and courts of appeals do not have this kind of jurisdiction. They are not “higher courts” than the state courts in this sense.<\/p>\n

The lower federal courts do have jurisdiction to hear habeas corpus petitions by state prisoners. These are civil suits against the warden of the prison claiming that the prisoner is being held illegally. If the prisoner is being held under the judgment of a court, something more than a disagreement with the court issuing the judgment has historically been required.<\/p>\n

In olden days, the only claim that would be considered is that the issuing court had no jurisdiction. Eventually “jurisdiction” was broadened to the point that all constitutional claims would be considered. Then the scope of constitutional claims was broadened so that practically any claim of criminal procedure could be stated as a federal constitutional claim. The result was that the lower federal courts were sitting as “higher courts” with appellate jurisdiction over state courts in practice. Even a single federal district judge could effectively overturn a unanimous decision of a state supreme court simply because he disagreed with it. He could do so even if the state court’s decision was well within the mainstream of American jurisprudence and his own opinion was an outlier.<\/p>\n

Congress pressed the brakes, but didn’t slam them, on this practice in 1996 in the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of that year. Within the bounds of reasonable disagreement among judges, the state court decision stands. As a safety valve, though, the lower federal courts can overturn the decision of a state court that is “contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States.” See 28 U.S.C. \u00a72254(d).<\/p>\n

Precedents set by higher courts must be followed by lower courts. In that last phrase Congress made clear that only the Supreme Court is “higher” than state courts in this sense. The federal district courts and courts of appeals are deputized to see that state courts follow U.S. Supreme Court precedent within the range of reasonable interpretation. They are not<\/em> authorized to make their own precedents binding on state courts, including their own interpretation of what Supreme Court precedents require.<\/p>\n

But some federal judges just don’t get it or won’t get it. Time and again, the Supreme Court must remind them of the limitations of their authority. Add one more to the list. The case is Shinn<\/em> v. Kayer<\/em><\/a>, No. 19-1302.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

One year ago this Friday, Judge Carlos Bea of the Ninth Circuit warned his colleagues they were headed for reversal in Kayer v. Ryan, No. 09-99027: “Like clockwork, practically on a yearly basis since the Millennium, we have forced the Supreme Court to correct our inability to apply the proper legal standards under the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (‘AEDPA’\u201d).” Sure enough, yesterday the Supreme Court summarily reversed, saying “the Court of Appeals clearly violated this Court\u2019s AEDPA jurisprudence.”<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[24,56],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-2564","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-habeas-corpus","category-u-s-supreme-court"],"yoast_head":"\nUSCA9 Chastised on AEDPA Yet Again - Crime & Consequences<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.crimeandconsequences.blog\/?p=2564\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"USCA9 Chastised on AEDPA Yet Again - Crime & Consequences\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"One year ago this Friday, Judge Carlos Bea of the Ninth Circuit warned his colleagues they were headed for reversal in Kayer v. Ryan, No. 09-99027: “Like clockwork, practically on a yearly basis since the Millennium, we have forced the Supreme Court to correct our inability to apply the proper legal standards under the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (‘AEDPA’\u201d).” Sure enough, yesterday the Supreme Court summarily reversed, saying “the Court of Appeals clearly violated this Court\u2019s AEDPA jurisprudence.”\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.crimeandconsequences.blog\/?p=2564\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Crime & Consequences\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/CriminalJusticeLegalFoundation\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2020-12-15T22:23:33+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/www.crimeandconsequences.blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/07\/FB_DefaultLJ.png\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"300\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"400\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/png\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Kent Scheidegger\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Kent Scheidegger\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"3 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.crimeandconsequences.blog\/?p=2564\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.crimeandconsequences.blog\/?p=2564\",\"name\":\"USCA9 Chastised on AEDPA Yet Again - Crime & Consequences\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.crimeandconsequences.blog\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2020-12-15T22:23:33+00:00\",\"author\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.crimeandconsequences.blog\/#\/schema\/person\/1ab62da9ed4ddd3a58d70c77eef37356\"},\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.crimeandconsequences.blog\/?p=2564#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.crimeandconsequences.blog\/?p=2564\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.crimeandconsequences.blog\/?p=2564#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.crimeandconsequences.blog\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"USCA9 Chastised on AEDPA Yet Again\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.crimeandconsequences.blog\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.crimeandconsequences.blog\/\",\"name\":\"Crime & Consequences\",\"description\":\"Crime and criminal law\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\/\/www.crimeandconsequences.blog\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.crimeandconsequences.blog\/#\/schema\/person\/1ab62da9ed4ddd3a58d70c77eef37356\",\"name\":\"Kent Scheidegger\",\"sameAs\":[\"https:\/\/www.cjlf.org\"],\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.crimeandconsequences.blog\/?author=1\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"USCA9 Chastised on AEDPA Yet Again - Crime & Consequences","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.crimeandconsequences.blog\/?p=2564","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"USCA9 Chastised on AEDPA Yet Again - Crime & Consequences","og_description":"One year ago this Friday, Judge Carlos Bea of the Ninth Circuit warned his colleagues they were headed for reversal in Kayer v. Ryan, No. 09-99027: “Like clockwork, practically on a yearly basis since the Millennium, we have forced the Supreme Court to correct our inability to apply the proper legal standards under the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (‘AEDPA’\u201d).” Sure enough, yesterday the Supreme Court summarily reversed, saying “the Court of Appeals clearly violated this Court\u2019s AEDPA jurisprudence.”","og_url":"https:\/\/www.crimeandconsequences.blog\/?p=2564","og_site_name":"Crime & Consequences","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/CriminalJusticeLegalFoundation\/","article_published_time":"2020-12-15T22:23:33+00:00","og_image":[{"width":300,"height":400,"url":"https:\/\/www.crimeandconsequences.blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/07\/FB_DefaultLJ.png","type":"image\/png"}],"author":"Kent Scheidegger","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Kent Scheidegger","Est. reading time":"3 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.crimeandconsequences.blog\/?p=2564","url":"https:\/\/www.crimeandconsequences.blog\/?p=2564","name":"USCA9 Chastised on AEDPA Yet Again - Crime & Consequences","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.crimeandconsequences.blog\/#website"},"datePublished":"2020-12-15T22:23:33+00:00","author":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.crimeandconsequences.blog\/#\/schema\/person\/1ab62da9ed4ddd3a58d70c77eef37356"},"breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.crimeandconsequences.blog\/?p=2564#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.crimeandconsequences.blog\/?p=2564"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.crimeandconsequences.blog\/?p=2564#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.crimeandconsequences.blog\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"USCA9 Chastised on AEDPA Yet Again"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.crimeandconsequences.blog\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.crimeandconsequences.blog\/","name":"Crime & Consequences","description":"Crime and criminal law","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.crimeandconsequences.blog\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.crimeandconsequences.blog\/#\/schema\/person\/1ab62da9ed4ddd3a58d70c77eef37356","name":"Kent Scheidegger","sameAs":["https:\/\/www.cjlf.org"],"url":"https:\/\/www.crimeandconsequences.blog\/?author=1"}]}},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.crimeandconsequences.blog\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2564","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.crimeandconsequences.blog\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.crimeandconsequences.blog\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.crimeandconsequences.blog\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.crimeandconsequences.blog\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=2564"}],"version-history":[{"count":3,"href":"https:\/\/www.crimeandconsequences.blog\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2564\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":2583,"href":"https:\/\/www.crimeandconsequences.blog\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2564\/revisions\/2583"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.crimeandconsequences.blog\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=2564"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.crimeandconsequences.blog\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=2564"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.crimeandconsequences.blog\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=2564"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}