Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/21pdf/20-826_p702.pdf
Page Number: 10

6 

BROWN v. DAVENPORT 

Opinion of the Court 

Persuaded that Mr. Davenport could satisfy his burden un-
der Brecht, the panel majority ordered Michigan to retry or
release him promptly.  964 F. 3d, at 464–468. 

Judge  Readler  dissented.    He  argued  that  Brecht  and 
AEDPA set forth independent tests, and that both must be 
satisfied  before  habeas  relief  becomes  permissible.    In 
Judge  Readler’s  view,  too,  the  District  Court  correctly  re-
jected Mr. Davenport’s petition under AEDPA because the 
state courts hearing his case had not acted contrary to, or
unreasonably applied, this Court’s decisions.  964 F. 3d, at 
469, 478. 

The Sixth Circuit denied rehearing en banc by a vote of 8
to 7.  Davenport v. MacLaren, 975 F. 3d 537 (2020).  Judges
Griffin  and  Thapar  issued  dissenting  opinions.    They  ex-
pressed agreement with Judge Readler and observed that
the panel majority’s decision conflicted with those of other 
circuits  where  petitioners  are  required  to  satisfy  both 
Brecht and AEDPA before becoming eligible for habeas re-
lief.  975 F. 3d, at 552 (Thapar, J., dissenting) (citing deci-
sions  from  the  Third,  Seventh,  Tenth,  and  Eleventh  Cir-
cuits).  We  granted  Michigan’s  petition  for  certiorari  to 
resolve  the  conflict  in  the  federal  courts  of  appeals  about
the proper interaction between these two tests.  593 U. S. 
___ (2021). 

II 

When  Congress  supplies  a  constitutionally  valid  rule  of 
decision, federal courts must follow it.  In AEDPA, Congress 
announced such a rule.  It instructed that a federal court 
“shall not . . . gran[t]” relief with respect to a claim that has
been adjudicated on the merits in state court “unless” the 
state court’s decision was (1) “contrary to” or an “unreason-
able application of ” clearly established federal law, as de-
termined by the decisions of this Court, or (2) based on an 
“unreasonable determination of the facts” presented in the 
state-court proceeding.  § 2254(d) (emphasis added).