Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/21pdf/20-637_10n2.pdf
Page Number: 28.0

6 

HEMPHILL v. NEW YORK 

THOMAS, J., dissenting 

be “properly presented” to the state court, even if a new ar-
gument in support of that claim is raised for the first time 
here.  503 U. S., at 534.  So, in Yee, the Fifth Amendment 
taking claim was properly presented because the petition-
ers “unquestionably raised [that] claim in the state courts” 
based on a “physical taking argument,” and it was “unclear” 
only whether they also raised a related “regulatory taking” 
argument.  Ibid.  Here, by contrast, Hemphill developed no 
basis for any federal claim before the Court of Appeals.  Yee 
is  therefore  inapplicable  and  §1257  bars  this  Court’s  re-
view. 

II 
Hemphill’s failure to properly present his Sixth Amend-
ment claim to the New York Court of Appeals divests this
Court  of  jurisdiction.    To  be  sure,  on  rare  occasions,  this 
Court has excused the failure to present a federal claim in 
state  court.  See,  e.g.,  Three  Affiliated  Tribes  of  Fort 
Berthold Reservation v. Wold Engineering, P. C., 476 U. S. 
877, 883 (1986).  Our insistence on proper presentation has 
been  “ ‘almost,’ ”  though  not  completely,  “ ‘unfailin[g].’ ”  
Ante, at 6 (quoting Howell v. Mississippi, 543 U. S. 440, 443 
(2005)  (per  curiam)).  But,  in  my  view,  the  Court’s  recent
treatment  of  §1257’s  proper-presentation  requirement  as 
merely  prudential  is  erroneous.    We  have  no  authority  to
forgive a petitioner’s failure to raise a federal claim in state 
court, because the proper-presentation requirement is a ju-
risdictional prerequisite to our review.  Absent jurisdiction,
the only appropriate remedy is dismissal.1 

Since the Judiciary Act of 1789, §25, 1 Stat. 85, Congress 

—————— 

1 Even if the proper-presentation requirement were merely prudential, 
I still would dismiss this case, albeit as improvidently granted.  I see no 
reason to deviate from our “almost unfailin[g]” refusal to hear improperly 
presented federal claims.   Howell, 543 U. S., at 443.  In this case, like 
many others, “ ‘the circumstances . . . justify no exception.’ ”  Id., at 446 
(collecting cases).  Particularly here, strong interests in comity counsel 
against hearing Hemphill’s Sixth Amendment claim.  See Part III, infra.