Specificity of past rulings
Scott Allen DeBruyn v. Douglas
In brief
- Where it stands
- Dismissed
Petition denied.
- What it’s about
- Scott Allen DeBruyn, a state prisoner seeking federal review of his case, asks how specific Supreme Court rulings must be to count as clearly established federal law under the rules for reviewing state prisoners’ habeas claims.
- Who it affects
- DeBruyn received no Supreme Court answer to the question he raised; the order decided no issue about the legal standard.
Summary: written with AI from the case record.
What it's about
DeBruyn’s petition concerns the rules federal courts use when reviewing a state prisoner’s request for federal review of his case (habeas relief).
Question presented
For the purposes of adjudicating a state prisoner’s petition for federal habeas relief, at what level of specificity must this Court define a legal principle in order for it to constitute “clearly established Federal law” under 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1)?
Documents
Docket activity
New analysis added
AI analysis generated: Case Briefing
AI analysis generated: Decision Record
New analysis added
Case data updated: summary, question_presented, generation_metadata
Show 3 moreShow fewer
Case data updated: question_presented, extraction_metadata
Brief added: Petition
Court Order added: Lower Court Orders/Opinions
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.