Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/22pdf/598us1r3_j4ek.pdf
Page Number: 17.0

32 

CRUZ v. ARIZONA 

Barrett, J., dissenting 

prisoners  seeking  to  fle  delayed  or  successive  § 2255  mo-
tions.  See  28  U. S. C.  §§ 2255(f),  (h).  The  parallel  breaks 
down,  however,  because  the  rules  are  different.  Unlike 
§ 2255(h)(2), which requires “a new rule of [federal] constitu-
tional  law,”  and  § 2255(f)(3),  which  requires  a  right  “newly 
recognized by the [U. S.] Supreme  Court,” the relevant por-
tion  of  Arizona's  Rule  32.1(g)  simply  requires  “a  signifcant 
change in the law.”  As the Arizona Supreme Court has re-
peatedly  interpreted  that  Rule,  Lynch  should  qualify  be-
cause  it  overruled  binding  Arizona  precedent,  creating  a 
clear  break  from  the  past  in  Arizona  courts.  The  Arizona 
Supreme  Court's  contrary  decision  was  unprecedented  and 
unforeseeable.  Only  violations  of  state  rules  that  are 
“ `frmly  established  and  regularly  followed'  .  .  .  will  be  ade-
quate to foreclose review of a federal claim.”  Lee, 534 U. S., 
at 376.  That standard is not met here. 

*

*

* 

In  exceptional  cases  where  a  state-court  judgment  rests 
on a novel and unforeseeable state-court procedural decision 
lacking  fair  or  substantial  support  in  prior  state  law,  that 
decision is not adequate to preclude review of a federal ques-
tion.  The Arizona Supreme Court applied Rule 32.1(g) in a 
manner  that  abruptly  departed  from  and  directly  conficted 
with its prior interpretations of that Rule.  Accordingly, the 
judgment  of  the  Supreme  Court  of  Arizona  is  vacated,  and 
the case is remanded for further proceedings not inconsistent 
with this opinion. 

It is so ordered. 

Justice Barrett, with whom Justice Thomas, Justice 

Alito, and Justice Gorsuch join, dissenting. 

The  adequate  and  independent  state  grounds  doctrine  is 
the  product  of  two  fundamental  features  of  our  jurisdiction. 
First, this Court is powerless to revise a state court's inter-
pretation of its own law.  Murdock v. Memphis, 20 Wall. 590, 

Page Proof Pending Publication