Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/boundvolumes/529bv.pdf
Page Number: 474

529US2

Unit: $U46

[10-07-01 17:18:24] PAGES PGT: OPIN

Cite as: 529 U. S. 362 (2000)

399

Opinion of O’Connor, J.

mining counsel’s effectiveness, and in his conclusion that the
entire postconviction record, viewed as a whole and cumula-
tive of mitigation evidence presented originally, raised “a
reasonable probability that the result of the sentencing pro-
ceeding would have been different” if competent counsel had
presented and explained the signiﬁcance of all the available
evidence.
It follows that the Virginia Supreme Court
rendered a “decision that was contrary to, or involved an
unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal law.”
Williams’ constitutional right to the effective assistance of
counsel as deﬁned in Strickland v. Washington, 466 U. S. 668
(1984), was violated.

Accordingly, the judgment of the Court of Appeals is re-
versed, and the case is remanded for further proceedings.

It is so ordered.

Justice O’Connor delivered the opinion of the Court
with respect to Part II (except as to the footnote), concurred
in part, and concurred in the judgment.*

In 1996, Congress enacted the Antiterrorism and Effective
Death Penalty Act (AEDPA).
In that Act, Congress placed
a new restriction on the power of federal courts to grant
writs of habeas corpus to state prisoners. The relevant pro-
vision, 28 U. S. C. § 2254(d)(1) (1994 ed., Supp. III), prohibits
a federal court from granting an application for a writ of
habeas corpus with respect to a claim adjudicated on the
merits in state court unless that adjudication “resulted in a
decision that was contrary to, or involved an unreasonable
application of, clearly established Federal law, as determined
by the Supreme Court of the United States.” The Court
holds today that the Virginia Supreme Court’s adjudication

*Justice Kennedy joins this opinion in its entirety. The Chief
Justice and Justice Thomas join this opinion with respect to Part II.
Justice Scalia joins this opinion with respect to Part II, except as to
the footnote, infra, at 408.