Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/boundvolumes/558bv.pdf
Page Number: 215.0

54 

BEARD  v.  KINDLER 

Syllabus 

Court  has  framed  the  adequacy  inquiry  by  asking  whether  the  state 
rule  was  “ﬁrmly  established  and  regularly  followed.”  Id.,  at  376.  A 
discretionary state  procedural rule  can serve as  an adequate  ground to 
bar federal habeas review even if the appropriate exercise of discretion 
may permit consideration of a federal claim in some cases but not others. 
A  contrary  holding  would  pose  an  unnecessary  dilemma  for  the 
States:  They  could  preserve  ﬂexibility  by  granting  courts  discretion  to 
excuse procedural errors, but only at the cost of undermining the ﬁnality 
of state court judgments.  Or States could preserve the ﬁnality of their 
judgments  by  withholding  such  discretion,  but  only  at  the  cost  of  pre­
cluding any ﬂexibility in applying the rules.  If forced to choose, many 
States would opt for mandatory rules to avoid the high costs of plenary 
federal  review.  That  would  be  unfortunate  in  many  cases,  as  discre­
tionary  rules  are  often  desirable.  The  federal  system,  for  example, 
often grants the trial judge broad discretion when his ringside perspec­
tive  at  the  main  event  offers  him  a  comparative  advantage  in  decision-
making.  The  States  have  followed  suit.  Given  the  federalism  and 
comity  concerns  motivating  the  adequate  state  ground  doctrine  in  the 
habeas context, see Coleman, supra, at 730, this Court should not disre­
gard  discretionary  state  procedural  rules  that  are  in  place  in  nearly 
every  State  and  are  substantially  similar  to  those  given  full  force 
in  federal  courts.  Cf.  Francis  v.  Henderson,  425  U. S.  536,  541–542. 
Pp. 60–63. 

542 F. 3d 70, vacated and remanded. 

Roberts,  C.  J.,  delivered  the  opinion  of  the  Court,  in  which  all  other 
Members  joined,  except  Alito,  J.,  who  took  no  part  in  the  consideration 
or decision of the case.  Kennedy, J., ﬁled a concurring opinion, in which 
Thomas, J., joined, post, p. 63. 

Ronald Eisenberg argued the cause for petitioners.  With 
him  on  the  briefs  were  Thomas  W.  Dolgenos  and  Lynne 
Abraham. 

Matthew C. Lawry  argued  the  cause  for  respondent. 
With him on the brief were Leigh Skipper, Jennifer L. Giv­
ens, and Billy H. Nolas.* 

*Briefs of amici curiae urging reversal were ﬁled for the State of Cali­
fornia  et  al.  by  Edmund  G.  Brown,  Jr.,  Attorney  General  of  California, 
Dane  R.  Gillette,  Chief  Assistant  Attorney  General,  and  Donald  E. 
de Nicola, Deputy State Solicitor General, by Kevin T. Kane, Chief State’s 
Attorney  of Connecticut,  by  Richard S.  Gebelein,  Chief Deputy  Attorney