Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/21pdf/20-826_p702.pdf
Page Number: 11.0

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

7 

Opinion of the Court 

The upshot of these directions for our case is straightfor-
ward.  No one questions that a state court’s harmless-error 
determination  qualifies  as  an  adjudication  on  the  merits
under  AEDPA.  See  Davis  v.  Ayala,  576  U. S.  257,  269 
(2015);  Fry  v.  Pliler,  551  U. S.  112,  119  (2007);  Early  v. 
Packer, 537 U. S. 3, 10–11 (2002) (per curiam).  No one dis-
putes that such a decision exists here.  Nor does Mr. Dav-
enport pursue any claim to relief under § 2254(d)(2).  From 
this,  it  follows  that  he  must  satisfy  § 2254(d)(1)  to  secure 
federal  habeas  relief.    To  be  sure,  where  Brecht  is  impli-
cated a federal court must also ensure a habeas petitioner 
has carried his burden under its terms before granting re-
lief.  But in cases like ours satisfying Brecht is only a nec-
essary, not a sufficient, condition to relief.  AEDPA too must 
be satisfied.  The Sixth Circuit erred in holding otherwise. 

A 

Some background helps explain this arrangement.  From 
the  founding,  Congress  authorized  federal  courts  to  issue 
habeas writs to federal custodians.  § 14, 1 Stat. 81–82.  Af-
ter the Civil War, Congress extended this authority, allow-
ing federal courts to issue habeas writs to state custodians
as well.  See Act of Feb. 5, 1867, ch. 28, § 1, 14 Stat. 385.
But these statutes used permissive rather than mandatory 
language; federal courts had the “power to” grant writs of 
habeas corpus in certain circumstances.  That same struc-
ture lives on in contemporary statutes, which provide that 
federal courts “may” grant habeas relief “as law and justice 
require.”  28  U. S. C.  §§ 2241,  2243;  Wright  v.  West,  505 
U. S. 277, 285 (1992) (plurality opinion).

Over  the  centuries,  a  number  of  writs  of  habeas  corpus
evolved at common law to serve a number of different func-
tions.  See Ex parte Bollman, 4 Cranch 75, 97–98 (1807); 3
W. Blackstone, Commentaries on the Laws of England 129–
131 (1768).  But the most notable among these writs was
that  of  habeas  corpus  ad  subjiciendum,  often  called  the