Later rulings in prisoner appeals
Greene v. Fisher
In brief
The Supreme Court agreed with the appeals court and left Pennsylvania's ruling in place because Gray came too late to support Greene's request for federal relief.
- Where it stands
- Decided
Decided · November 8, 2011 · Opinion by Justice Scalia
- What it’s about
- Greene sought federal relief based on Gray, a Supreme Court decision issued after Pennsylvania’s last ruling on his claim.
- Who it affects
- Greene could not use Gray to meet the federal standard for setting aside Pennsylvania's ruling.
Summary: written with AI from the case record.
What it's about
The Supreme Court agreed with the Third Circuit that Gray was not “clearly established federal law” for reviewing the earlier ruling; the state decision did not meet the law’s standard for federal relief.
Federal courts reviewing state-court rulings use Supreme Court law that was already established when the state court ruled.
Question presented
Does a Supreme Court decision qualify as "clearly established Federal law" under 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d), as amended by the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996, if that Supreme Court decision was entered after the relevant state-court adjudication on the merits ?
What the Court decided
Holding
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.” 606 F. 3d 85, affirmed.
- Result
- Affirmed
The Court's reasoning
Pennsylvania's last ruling on Greene's claim came nearly three months before Gray. The Court said Gray could not count as clearly established federal law for judging an earlier state decision, so that decision did not conflict with or unreasonably apply the federal law then in place.
The vote
- Majority author
- Antonin Scalia
What's next
The appeals court's ruling stands, and Pennsylvania's state-court decision remains in place.
Documents
Opinions
Audio
Docket activity
New analysis added
AI analysis generated: Impact Analysis
AI analysis generated: Opinion Summary
New analysis added
AI analysis generated: Case Briefing
Show 5 moreShow fewer
AI analysis generated: Decision Record
Case data updated: summary, question_presented, generation_metadata
Case data updated: question_presented, extraction_metadata
Audio Recording added: Oral Arguments - Greene
Opinion added: Greene
Sources
Primary materials plus reporting. Best-effort analysis: this explainer relies on a mix of primary materials and trusted secondary sources. Official filings and opinions remain authoritative.