Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/21pdf/20-826_p702.pdf
Page Number: 38

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

9 

KAGAN, J., dissenting 

ard) the court has to find “actual prejudice”—more specifi-
cally,  that  there  is  “grave  doubt”  about  whether  an  error 
had  a  “substantial  and  injurious  effect  or  influence”  on  a 
verdict.  Brecht, 507 U. S., at 637; O’Neal v. McAninch, 513 
U. S. 432, 436 (1995).  But no more is required: The court
need  not,  Davenport  says,  separately  apply  the  AEDPA 
test.  Which means it does not have to analyze (here is the
AEDPA test) whether the state appellate court acted “un-
reasonabl[y],” 28 U. S. C. §2254(d), when it decided, under 
Chapman v. California, 386 U. S. 18 (1967), that an error 
was  harmless  beyond  a  reasonable  doubt.  Is  Davenport
right?

This Court (first) made clear in Fry v. Pliler that he is. 
The  question  there  was  whether  a  federal  habeas  court 
should  assess  harmless  error  under  Brecht  (rather  than 
Chapman) even when the state court had failed to make the
harmlessness finding Chapman requires on direct review.
Justice Scalia, speaking for a unanimous Court, explained 
why the habeas court should still apply Brecht: Use of the 
defendant-friendly Chapman test on habeas would “under-
min[e] the States’ interest in [the] finality” of convictions. 
551 U. S., at 117 (quoting Brecht, 507 U. S., at 637).  But 
Fry  raised  an  objection.    In  recently  enacting  AEDPA,  he 
claimed, Congress had abolished the Brecht test—replacing 
it with a new AEDPA/Chapman standard of review.  That 
argument, of course, differs from Davenport’s.  See ante, at 
18.  But the Court’s reply, in describing the relationship be-
tween Brecht and AEDPA, answers today’s question: 

“Given  our  frequent  recognition  that  AEDPA  limited 
rather than expanded the availability of habeas relief, 

—————— 
standard alone.  So Brecht could not possibly affect AEDPA’s materials
requirement—and Davenport properly recognizes as much.  But Brecht 
could obviate the need to apply AEDPA’s standard—and as I’ll describe, 
this Court has not once but twice made clear that it does.