Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/21pdf/20-826_p702.pdf
Page Number: 22

18 

BROWN v. DAVENPORT 

Opinion of the Court 

121. 

None of this answers the question we face today.  Where 
the  petitioner  in  Fry  sought  to  suggest  that  AEDPA  ren-
dered Brecht a dead letter, the petitioner here argues nearly
the opposite.  And the Court’s ruling in Fry is, if anything, 
affirmatively unhelpful to Mr. Davenport.  Not only did Fry
hold that this Court’s equitable precedents like Brecht co-
exist side-by-side with AEDPA, it expressly recognized that 
AEDPA “sets forth a precondition to the grant of habeas re-
lief . . . not an entitlement to it.”  551 U. S., at 119–120.  Ra-
ther than suggest Brecht duplicates AEDPA or vice versa, 
Fry  thus  stands  as  a  reminder  that  the  two  tests  impose
analytically distinct preconditions to relief.

require 

Mr. Davenport offers no persuasive reply.  Instead, he in-
vites us to overlook all of this and train our attention to a 
brief passage at the end of Fry’s relevant analysis.  There, 
he notes, the Court said this:  “[I]t certainly makes no sense 
to 
tests 
(AEDPA/Chapman  and  Brecht)  when  the  latter  obviously
subsumes the former.”  551 U. S., at 120.  On Mr. Daven-
port’s telling, whatever else Fry did or said, this language
means  it  adopted  his  theory  that  a  court  applying  Brecht 
necessarily applies AEDPA along the way. 

application 

formal 

both 

of 

We do not see how we might read so much into so little. 
Doubtless, there are some cases “when” Brecht does “sub-
sum[e]” AEDPA, just as Fry says.  551 U. S., at 120.  As we 
have seen, and as was the case in Fry, if a state court has 
not  adjudicated  the  petitioner’s  claim  on  the  merits,
AEDPA falls away.  Likewise, if a federal court determines 
that  a  habeas  petition  fails  because  of  Brecht,  there  is  no 
need  to  prolong  the  matter  by  “formal[ly]  appl[ying]” 
AEDPA as well.  551 U. S., at 120.  But none of this means, 
and Fry never said, that a Brecht inquiry always subsumes 
an AEDPA inquiry.  Nor did Fry even have reason to con-
sider the relationship between Brecht and AEDPA in cases 
like ours—where a state court has issued a decision on the