Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/19pdf/18-5924_n6io.pdf
Page Number: 50

16 

RAMOS v. LOUISIANA 

KAVANAUGH, J., concurring in part 

generally  do  not  apply  retroactively  on  habeas  corpus  re-
view.  See Teague v. Lane, 489 U. S. 288, 311 (1989) (plu-
rality  opinion);  Griffith  v.  Kentucky,  479  U. S.  314,  328 
(1987).  Teague recognizes only two exceptions to that gen-
eral  habeas  non-retroactivity  principle:  “if  (1)  the  rule  is 
substantive or (2) the rule is a ‘watershed rul[e] of criminal 
procedure’ implicating the fundamental fairness and accu-
racy of the criminal proceeding.”  Whorton v. Bockting, 549 
U. S.  406,  416  (2007)  (internal  quotation  marks  omitted). 
The new rule announced today—namely, that state crimi-
nal juries must be unanimous—does not fall within either 
of those two narrow Teague exceptions and therefore, as a 
matter of federal law, should not apply retroactively on ha-
beas corpus review.
  The first Teague exception does not apply because today’s
new rule is procedural, not substantive: It affects “only the 
manner  of  determining  the  defendant’s  culpability.” 
Schriro v. Summerlin, 542 U. S. 348, 353 (2004). 
  The second Teague exception does not apply because to-
day’s new rule, while undoubtedly important, is not a “wa-
tershed” procedural rule.  This Court has flatly stated that 
“it  is  unlikely  that  any  such  rules”  have  “yet  to  emerge.” 
Whorton, 549 U. S., at 417 (internal quotation marks omit-
ted).  In  “the  years  since  Teague,  we  have  rejected  every
claim that a new rule satisfied the requirements for water-
shed  status.”  Id.,  at  418,  421  (rejecting  retroactivity  for 
Crawford  v.  Washington,  541  U. S.  36  (2004));  see,  e.g., 
Beard v. Banks, 542 U. S. 406, 420 (2004) (rejecting retro-
activity for Mills v. Maryland, 486 U. S. 367 (1988)); Sum-
merlin, 542 U. S., at 358 (rejecting retroactivity for Ring v. 
Arizona,  536  U. S.  584  (2002));  O’Dell  v.  Netherland,  521 
U. S. 151, 167–168 (1997) (rejecting retroactivity for Sim-
mons v. South Carolina, 512 U. S. 154 (1994)); Lambrix v. 
Singletary, 520 U. S. 518, 539–540 (1997) (rejecting retro-
activity for Espinosa v. Florida, 505 U. S. 1079 (1992) (per 
curiam)); Sawyer v. Smith, 497 U. S. 227, 241–245 (1990)