Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/boundvolumes/529bv.pdf
Page Number: 459

529US2

Unit: $U46

[10-07-01 17:18:24] PAGES PGT: OPIN

384

WILLIAMS v. TAYLOR

Opinion of Stevens, J.

of a state court’s legal conclusions on habeas, or that a
state court’s incorrect legal determination has ever been
allowed to stand because it was reasonable. We have
always held that federal courts, even on habeas, have an
independent obligation to say what the law is.” 505
U. S., at 305 (opinion concurring in judgment).

We are convinced that in the phrase, “clearly established
law,” Congress did not intend to modify that independent
obligation.

The “contrary to, or an unreasonable application of,”
requirement

The message that Congress intended to convey by using
the phrases “contrary to” and “unreasonable application of ”
is not entirely clear. The prevailing view in the Circuits is
that the former phrase requires de novo review of “pure”
questions of law and the latter requires some sort of “reason-
ability” review of so-called mixed questions of law and fact.
See, e. g., Neelley v. Nagle, 138 F. 3d 917 (CA11 1998); Drink-
ard v. Johnson, 97 F. 3d 751 (CA5 1996); Lindh v. Murphy,
96 F. 3d 856 (CA7 1996) (en banc), rev’d on other grounds,
521 U. S. 320 (1997).

We are not persuaded that the phrases deﬁne two mutu-
ally exclusive categories of questions. Most constitutional
questions that arise in habeas corpus proceedings—and
therefore most “decisions” to be made—require the federal
judge to apply a rule of law to a set of facts, some of which
may be disputed and some undisputed. For example, an er-
roneous conclusion that particular circumstances established
the voluntariness of a confession, or that there exists a con-
ﬂict of interest when one attorney represents multiple de-
fendants, may well be described either as “contrary to” or as
an “unreasonable application of ” the governing rule of law.
Cf. Miller v. Fenton, 474 U. S. 104, 116 (1985); Cuyler v. Sul-
livan, 446 U. S. 335, 341–342 (1980).
In constitutional adju-
dication, as in the common law, rules of law often develop