Greene v. Fisher

Habeas relief: federal habeas relief: clearly established Federal law, as deter­mined by the Supreme Court of the United States includes only this Court’s decisions as of the time of the relevant state-court adjudica­tion on the merits; then sought federal habeas relief. Under the Antiter­rorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (AEDPA), a federal court may not grant such relief to a state prisoner on any claim that has been “adjudicated on the merits in State court proceedings” un­less that adjudication “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.” 28 U. S. C. §2254(d)(1); under §2254(d)(1), “clearly established Federal law, as deter­mined by the Supreme Court of the United States” includes only this Court’s decisions as of the time of the relevant state-court adjudica­tion on the merits. The Court’s decision last Term in Cullen v. Pin­holster, 563 U. S. ___, established that §2254(d)(1)’s “backward­looking language requires an examination of the state-court decision at the time it was made.” Id., at ___. As the Court explained in Cul­len, §2254(d)(1) requires federal courts to measure state-court deci­sions “against this Court’s precedents as of ‘the time the state court renders its decision.’ ” Id., at ___. That reasoning determines the re­sult here; because the Pennsylvania Superior Court’s decision—the last state-court adjudication on the merits of Greene’s claim—predated Gray by nearly three months, the Third Circuit correctly held that Gray was not “clearly established Federal law” against which it could measure the state-court decision. It therefore correctly concluded that the state court’s decision neither was “contrary to,” nor “involved an unreasonable application of,” any “clearly established Federal law.” (U.S.S.Ct., 08.11.11, Greene v. Fisher, J. Scalia, unanimous).

Procédure d’habeas fédéral : précisions sur la question de droit fédéral clairement établi, selon les déterminations de la Cour Suprême fédérale : ce droit fédéral clairement établi ne comprend que la jurisprudence de la Cour Suprême rendue avant que ne soit rendu le dernier jugement étatique. Ainsi, pour déterminer si les Tribunaux des états ont appliqué le droit fédéral clairement établi, la Cour Suprême fédérale ne prend en compte que sa jurisprudence rendue au jour du dernier jugement étatique statuant au fond. Dans cette affaire, la Cour Suprême fédérale ne prend pas en compte une de ses décisions rendue trois mois après le dernier jugement étatique au fond pour déterminer rétrospectivement si le dernier Tribunal étatique à rendre une décision s’est conformé au droit fédéral clairement établi.