Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/boundvolumes/529bv.pdf
Page Number: 451

529US2

Unit: $U46

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

376

WILLIAMS v. TAYLOR

Opinion of Stevens, J.

“(d) An application for a writ of habeas corpus on be-
half of a person in custody pursuant to the judgment of
a State court shall not be granted with respect to any
claim that was adjudicated on the merits in State court
proceedings unless the adjudication of the claim—

“(1) resulted in a decision that was contrary to, or
involved an unreasonable application of, clearly estab-
lished Federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court
of the United States . . . .”

In this case, the Court of Appeals applied the construction
of the amendment that it had adopted in its earlier opinion
in Green v. French, 143 F. 3d 865 (CA4 1998).
It read the
amendment as prohibiting federal courts from issuing the
writ unless:

“(a) the state court decision is in ‘square conﬂict’ with
Supreme Court precedent that is controlling as to law
and fact or (b) if no such controlling decision exists, ‘the
state court’s resolution of a question of pure law rests
upon an objectively unreasonable derivation of legal
principles from the relevant [S]upreme [C]ourt prece-
dents, or if its decision rests upon an objectively unrea-
sonable application of established principles to new
facts,’ ” 163 F. 3d, at 865 (quoting Green, 143 F. 3d, at
870).

Accordingly, it held that a federal court may issue habeas
relief only if “ ‘the state courts have decided the question by
interpreting or applying the relevant precedent in a manner
that reasonable jurists would all agree is unreasonable,’ ” 163
F. 3d, at 865.8

8 The warden’s view is narrower. He argues that 28 U. S. C. § 2254(d)(1)
(1994 ed., Supp. III) establishes a new general rule that prohibits federal
courts from granting habeas corpus relief on the basis of any claim that a
state court has adjudicated on the merits, and that § 2254(d)(1) merely
identiﬁes two narrow exceptions to the general rule—when a state court
has issued a decision “contrary to” or an “unreasonable application of ”