Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/21pdf/20-826_p702.pdf
Page Number: 39

10 

BROWN v. DAVENPORT 

KAGAN, J., dissenting 

it  is  implausible  that,  without  saying  so,  AEDPA  re-
placed the Brecht standard of actual prejudice with the 
more  liberal  AEDPA/Chapman  standard  which  re-
quires  only  that  the  state  court’s  harmless-beyond-a-
reasonable-doubt  determination  be  unreasonable. 
That said, it certainly makes no sense to require formal 
application  of  both  tests  (AEDPA/Chapman  and 
Brecht)  when  the  latter  obviously  subsumes  the  for-
mer.”  551  U. S.,  at  119–120  (citations  and  internal 
quotation marks omitted). 

That passage is clear on its face, as Justice Scalia’s opinions 
typically are.  But because the majority pretends it does not
say what it says, see ante, at 18–19, it is worth going over.
The key points are two.  First, the Brecht standard is harder 
for  a  prisoner  to  meet—i.e.,  less  “liberal”—than  the 
AEDPA/Chapman  standard.    And  second,  because  that  is 
so—because  Brecht  so  “obviously  subsumes”  AEDPA/ 
Chapman—it  “makes  no  sense”  to  require  a  court  to  for-
mally apply both.  Just apply Brecht and be done with it. 
Not in “some cases,” and not in select “scenario[s],” as to-
day’s majority imagines.  Ante, at 18–19.  But as a rule.  Be-
cause  if  a  prisoner  can  satisfy  Brecht,  he  can  “obviously” 
satisfy AEDPA/Chapman, and courts should not have to do 
needless work. 

But  we  need  not  take  Fry’s  word  for  the  point,  because 
the Court in Davis v. Ayala reaffirmed everything Justice
Scalia said.  In Ayala, a federal court held on habeas that a 
state trial error caused actual prejudice under Brecht.  This 
Court  disagreed  and  reversed,  but  it  made  clear  that  the 
Brecht test governed.  See 576 U. S., at 267 (“In a collateral 
proceeding,  the  test  is”  Brecht’s  “actual  prejudice”  stand-
ard).  After  describing  that  standard  (with  stress  on  its
strictness),  the  Court  addressed  its  relation  to  AEDPA. 
Brecht in no way “abrogates” AEDPA, the Court noted.  576 
U. S.,  at  268.    But  the  Court  explained—several  times