Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/19pdf/18-5924_n6io.pdf
Page Number: 82

Cite as:  590 U. S. ____ (2020) 

21 

ALITO, J., dissenting 

of  Louisiana  and  Oregon  are  almost  sure  to  be  over-
whelmed. 

The majority’s response to this possibility is evasive.  It 
begins by hinting that today’s decision will not apply on col-
lateral  review  under  the  framework  adopted  in  Teague  v. 
Lane, 489 U. S. 288, 315 (1989) (plurality opinion).  Under 
Teague,  “an  old  rule  applies  both  on  direct  and  collateral
review,” but if today’s decision constitutes a new procedural 
rule, prisoners will be able to rely on it in a collateral pro-
ceeding only if it is what we have termed a “watershed rule”
that implicates “the fundamental fairness and accuracy of 
the  criminal  proceeding.”  Whorton  v.  Bockting,  549  U. S. 
406,  416  (2007).    Noting  that  we  have  never  found  a  new 
rule  of  criminal  procedure  to  qualify  as  “watershed,”  the
Court hints that the decision in this case is likely to meet
the same fate. 

But  having  feinted  in  this  direction,  the  Court  quickly
changes  course  and  says  that  the  application  of  today’s
decision to prisoners whose appeals have ended should not 
concern us.  Ante, at 23–24.  That question, we are told, will 
be decided in a later case.  Ibid. 

The majority cannot have it both ways.  As long as retro-
active application on collateral review remains a real possi-
bility, the crushing burden that this would entail cannot be
ignored.  And while it is true that this Court has been chary 
in recognizing new watershed rules, it is by no means clear 
that Teague will preclude the application of today’s decision
on collateral review. 

Teague  applies  only  to  a  “new  rule,”  and  the  positions 
taken by some in the majority may lead to the conclusion
that the rule announced today is an old rule.  Take the prop-
osition,  adopted  by  three  Members  of  the  majority,  that 
Apodaca was never a precedent.  Those Justices, along with 
the rest of the majority, take the position that our cases es-
tablished well before Apodaca both that the Sixth Amend-
ment requires unanimity, ante, at 6–7, and that it applies