Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/21pdf/21-511_o75p.pdf
Page Number: 8.0

Cite as:  596 U. S. ____ (2022) 

5 

Opinion of the Court 

first.1 

A 
A federal court’s power to grant habeas relief is restricted
under the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of
1996  (AEDPA),  which  provides  that  the  writ  may  issue 
“only on the ground that [the prisoner] is in custody in vio-
lation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United 
States.”  28 U. S. C. §2254(a).  To understand the propriety
of the transportation order the District Court entered while 
adjudicating Twyford’s habeas corpus action, it is necessary 
to review the limits AEDPA imposes on federal courts. 

Congress enacted AEDPA “to reduce delays in the execu-
tion of state and federal criminal sentences, particularly in
capital  cases,”  Woodford  v.  Garceau,  538  U. S.  202,  206 
(2003),  and  to  advance  “the  principles  of  comity,  finality, 

—————— 

1 The Court of Appeals concluded that it had jurisdiction to review the 
District Court’s order, and we agree.  See Cohen v. Beneficial Industrial 
Loan Corp., 337 U. S. 541, 546 (1949).  Transportation orders issued un-
der the All Writs Act (1) conclusively require transportation; (2) resolve
an important question of state sovereignty conceptually distinct from the
merits of the prisoner’s claims, see Puerto Rico Aqueduct and Sewer Au-
thority v. Metcalf & Eddy, Inc., 506 U. S. 139, 144–145 (1993); and (3) are 
entirely unreviewable by the time the case has gone to final judgment.
The dissent treats the order at issue as a mere discovery order, see post, 
at 3–7 (opinion of BREYER, J.), but that glosses over what it entails: re-
quiring a State to take a convicted felon outside the prison’s walls.  Such 
an order creates public safety risks and burdens on the State that cannot 
be remedied after final judgment, and we have in fact reviewed an iden-
tical  order  before.    See  Pennsylvania  Bureau  of  Correction  v.  United 
States Marshals Service, 474 U. S. 34 (1985); see also Brief for Petition-
ers 10, n. 6, and Brief for Federal Respondents 17, n. 8, in Pennsylvania 
Bureau of Correction, O. T. 1984, No. 84–489 (noting the Cohen jurisdic-
tional issue).  Every Court of Appeals to consider the question, moreover, 
has held that such orders are immediately appealable.  See 11 F. 4th 515, 
522 (CA6 2021); Jones v. Lilly, 37 F. 3d 964, 965–966 (CA3 1994); Jack-
son v. Vasquez, 1 F. 3d 885, 887–888 (CA9 1993); Ballard v. Spradley, 
557 F. 2d 476, 479 (CA5 1977); see also Barnes v. Black, 544 F. 3d 807, 
810–811 (CA7 2008).