Christopher Klein, Superintendent, Department of Detention Facilities for Anne Arundel County, et al., Petitioners v. Charles Brandon Martin

The Supreme Court reversed the Fourth Circuit in a case about federal habeas review (a prisoner's challenge to a state conviction). The justices said the key question under AEDPA is whether the state court's decision conflicted with or unreasonably applied Supreme Court precedent, not whether the state court's opinion was written in a way a federal court prefers.

In an 8-1 per curiam decision issued without oral argument, the Court reversed and remanded.

“"Faithful application of those standards sometimes puts federal district courts and courts of appeals in the disagreeable position of having to deny relief in cases they would have analyzed differently if they had been in the shoes of the relevant state court."”

The decision reinforces AEDPA's strict limits on when federal courts can overturn state-court criminal judgments. For example, a state prisoner may not get federal relief just because a federal judge thinks the state court gave a thin or unpersuasive explanation.

The case goes back to the lower court for further proceedings consistent with the Supreme Court's decision. The Supreme Court has finished its work on this docket action.

The fight was over how a federal court should review a state-court decision under AEDPA. The Court said the focus is the result's consistency with Supreme Court precedent, not the opinion's writing quality.

State prisoners seeking federal habeas relief and the judges reviewing those petitions are most affected. The ruling makes clear that weak state-court reasoning alone is not enough for relief.

The case returns to the lower court for more proceedings under the Supreme Court's instructions. The justices' work in this case is otherwise finished.