Kevin McCarthy, Superintendent, Elmira Correctional Facility v. Pedro Hernandez

The case asked whether the Second Circuit was wrong to set aside Pedro Hernandez's New York conviction based on the trial judge's response to a jury note about whether his statements were voluntary. In an unsigned opinion, the Supreme Court said a federal law that tightly limits federal court review of state convictions barred the Second Circuit from going that far.

The Court issued an unsigned per curiam opinion on June 22, 2026. The prompt does not provide a vote count or any separate opinions, and no argument was scheduled.

“AEDPA imposes strict limits on federal courts’ power to grant habeas relief to a prisoner convicted in state court.”

The decision makes it harder for state prisoners to win federal habeas relief (a federal court order undoing a state conviction). For example, a prisoner challenging how a state judge answered a jury question will face strict limits in federal court.

The Supreme Court has finished with this case. The lower courts must now carry out the Court's per curiam decision.

The justices reviewed whether the Second Circuit wrongly overturned Hernandez's conviction over the trial judge's response to a jury note about confession voluntariness.

State prisoners seeking federal habeas relief are most affected. The decision stresses that federal judges must respect AEDPA's tight limits.

The Supreme Court's work is done. The lower courts must carry out the per curiam opinion in Hernandez's case.