Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/19pdf/18-5924_n6io.pdf
Page Number: 83.0

22 

RAMOS v. LOUISIANA 

ALITO, J., dissenting 

in the same way in state and federal court, ante, at 9.  Thus, 
if Apodaca was never a precedent and did not disturb what
had previously been established, it may be argued that to-
day’s  decision  does  not  impose  a  new  rule  but  instead 
merely recognizes what the correct rule has been for many 
years.

Two other Justices in the majority acknowledge that Apo-
daca  was  a  precedent  and  thus  would  presumably  regard
today’s decision as a “new rule,” but the question remains 
whether  today’s  decision  qualifies  as  a  “watershed  rule.” 
JUSTICE KAVANAUGH concludes that it does not and all but 
decides—without  briefing  or  argument—that  the  decision
will not apply retroactively on federal collateral review and 
similarly that there will be no successful claims of ineffec-
tive assistance of counsel for failing to challenge Apodaca. 
See ante, at 15–17 (opinion concurring in part).

The remaining Justices in the majority, and those of us 
in dissent, express no view on this question, but the major-
ity’s depiction of the unanimity requirement as a hallowed
right  that  Louisiana  and  Oregon  flouted  for  ignominious
reasons  certainly  provides  fuel  for  the  argument  that  the 
rule announced today meets the test.  And in Oregon, the 
State  most  severely  impacted  by  today’s  decision,  water-
shed status may not matter since the State Supreme Court
has reserved decision on whether state law gives prisoners 
a greater opportunity to invoke new precedents in state col-
lateral  proceedings.  See  Verduzco  v.  State,  357  Ore.  553, 
574, 355 P. 3d 902, 914 (2015).31 

Whatever  the  ultimate  resolution  of  the  retroactivity
question,  the  reliance  here  is  not  only  massive;  it  is  con-
crete.  Cf.  Dickerson  v.  United  States,  530  U. S.  428,  443 

—————— 

31 Under our case law, a State must give retroactive effect to any con-
stitutional decision that is retroactive under the standard in Teague v. 
Lane, 489 U. S. 288 (1989), but it may adopt a broader retroactivity rule. 
Montgomery v. Louisiana, 577 U. S. ___, ___ (2016); Danforth v. Minne-
sota, 552 U. S. 264, 275 (2008).