388
Opinion of Stevens, J.
Our disagreement with the Court about the precise meaning of the phrase "contrary to," and the word "unreasonable," is, of course, important, but should affect only a narrow category of cases. The simplest and first definition of "contrary to" as a phrase is "in conflict with." Webster's
AEDPA's "unreasonable application of" has the same meaning as Justice Thomas' " 'patently unreasonable' " standard mentioned in his dictum in Wright. 505 U. S., at 291 (quoting Butler v. McKellar, 494 U. S. 407, 422 (1990) (Brennan, J., dissenting)). To the extent the "broader debate" in Wright touched upon the Court's novel distinction today between what is "wrong" and what is "unreasonable," it was in the context of a discussion not about the standard of review habeas courts should use for law-application questions, but about whether a rule is "new" or "old" such that Teague's retroactivity rule would bar habeas relief; Justice Thomas contended that Teague barred habeas "whenever the state courts have interpreted old precedents reasonably, not [as Justice O'Connor suggested] only when they have done so 'properly.' " 505 U. S., at 291-292, n. 8. Teague, of course, as Justice O'Connor correctly pointed out, "did not establish a standard of review at all," 505 U. S., at 303-304; rather than instructing a court how to review a claim, it simply asks, in absolute terms, whether a rule was clear at the time of a state-court decision. We thus do not think Wright "confirms" anything about the meaning of § 2254(d)(1), which is, as our division reflects, anything but "clear." Post, at 412.
As for the other bases for the Court's view, the only two specific citations to the legislative history upon which it relies, post, at 408, do no more than beg the question. One merely quotes the language of the statute without elaboration, and the other goes to slightly greater length in stating that state-court judgments must be upheld unless "unreasonable." Neither sheds any light on what the content of the hypothetical category of "decisions" that are wrong but nevertheless not "unreasonable." Finally, while we certainly agree with the Court, post, at 403, that AEDPA wrought substantial changes in habeas law, see supra, at 386; see also, e. g., 28 U. S. C. § 2244(b) (1994 ed., Supp. III) (strictly limiting second or successive petitions); § 2244(d) (1-year statute of limitations for habeas petitions); § 2254(e)(2) (limiting availability of evidentiary hearings on habeas); §§ 2263, 2266 (strict deadlines for habeas court rulings), there is an obvious fallacy in the assumption that because the statute changed pre-existing law in some respects, it must have rendered this specific change here.
Page: Index Previous 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 NextLast modified: October 4, 2007