Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/boundvolumes/558bv.pdf
Page Number: 224

Cite as: 558 U. S. 53 (2009) 

63 

Kennedy, J., concurring 

wealth  join  in  that  request.  See  Brief  for  Criminal  Justice 
Legal Foundation as Amicus Curiae 6–10.  We decline that 
invitation  as  well.  The  procedural  default  at  issue  here— 
escape  from  prison—is  hardly  a  typical  procedural  default, 
making  this  case  an  unsuitable  vehicle  for  providing  broad 
guidance on the adequate state ground doctrine. 

If our holding in this case is narrow, it is because the ques­
tion  we  granted  certiorari  to  decide  is  narrow.  Answering 
that question is sufﬁcient unto the day. 

The  judgment  of  the  Court  of  Appeals  for  the  Third  Cir­
cuit is vacated, and the case is remanded for further proceed­
ings consistent with this opinion. 

It is so ordered. 

Justice  Alito  took  no  part  in  the  consideration  or  deci­

sion of this case. 

Justice  Kennedy,  with  whom  Justice  Thomas  joins, 

concurring. 

Due  consideration  of  the  phrasing  in  the  question  pre­
sented  and  of  the  arguments  and  concessions  by  counsel 
leads  to  the  conclusion  that  this  case  should  be  vacated  and 
remanded, and I join the Court’s opinion.  The apparent dif­
ﬁculty  the  Court  of  Appeals  for  the  Third  Circuit  found  in 
accepting  the  Supreme  Court  of  Pennsylvania’s  procedural 
bar conclusion, however, invites this further comment. 

The  adequate  state  ground  doctrine  cannot  be  applied 
without consideration of the purposes it is designed to serve. 
By  refraining  from  deciding  cases  that  rest  on  an  adequate 
and  independent  state  ground,  federal  courts  show  proper 
respect  for  state  courts  and  avoid  rendering  advisory  opin­
ions.  Michigan  v.  Long,  463  U. S.  1032,  1040  (1983).  The 
claimed  adequate  and  independent  state  ground  at  issue  in 
this  case  is  a  state  procedural  rule.  We  have  not  allowed 
state courts to bar review of federal claims by invoking new 
procedural rules without adequate notice to litigants who, in