Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/boundvolumes/529bv.pdf
Page Number: 454

529US2

Unit: $U46

[10-07-01 17:18:24] PAGES PGT: OPIN

Cite as: 529 U. S. 362 (2000)

379

Opinion of Stevens, J.

power is the federal courts’ independent responsibility—in-
dependent from its coequal branches in the Federal Govern-
ment, and independent from the separate authority of the
several States—to interpret federal law. A construction of
AEDPA that would require the federal courts to cede this
authority to the courts of the States would be inconsistent
with the practice that federal judges have traditionally fol-
lowed in discharging their duties under Article III of the
If Congress had intended to require such an
Constitution.
important change in the exercise of our jurisdiction, we be-
lieve it would have spoken with much greater clarity than is
found in the text of AEDPA.

This basic premise informs our interpretation of both parts
of § 2254(d)(1): ﬁrst, the requirement that the determinations
of state courts be tested only against “clearly established
Federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court of the
United States,” and second, the prohibition on the issuance
of the writ unless the state court’s decision is “contrary to,
or involved an unreasonable application of,” that clearly es-
tablished law. We address each part in turn.

The “clearly established law” requirement

In Teague v. Lane, 489 U. S. 288 (1989), we held that the
petitioner was not entitled to federal habeas relief because
he was relying on a rule of federal law that had not been
announced until after his state conviction became ﬁnal. The
antiretroactivity rule recognized in Teague, which prohibits
reliance on “new rules,” is the functional equivalent of a stat-
utory provision commanding exclusive reliance on “clearly
established law.” Because there is no reason to believe that
Congress intended to require federal courts to ask both
whether a rule sought on habeas is “new” under Teague—
which remains the law—and also whether it is “clearly estab-
lished” under AEDPA, it seems safe to assume that Congress