Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/19pdf/18-5924_n6io.pdf
Page Number: 51.0

Cite as:  590 U. S. ____ (2020) 

17 

KAVANAUGH, J., concurring in part 

(rejecting  retroactivity  for  Caldwell  v.  Mississippi,  472 
U. S. 320 (1985)); see also Allen v. Hardy, 478 U. S. 255, 261 
(1986)  (per  curiam)  (rejecting  retroactivity  for  Batson  v. 
Kentucky,  476  U. S.  79  (1986));  DeStefano  v.  Woods,  392 
U. S.  631,  635  (1968)  (per  curiam)  (rejecting  retroactivity 
for Duncan, 391 U. S. 145).

So  assuming  that  the  Court  faithfully  applies  Teague, 
today’s  decision  will  not  apply  retroactively  on  federal 
habeas corpus review and will not disturb convictions that
are final.8 

In addition, as to ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claims, 
an attorney presumably would not have been deficient for 
failing  to  raise  a  constitutional  jury-unanimity  argument 
before  today’s  decision—or  at  the  very  least,  before  the
Court  granted  certiorari  in  this  case.    Before  today,  after
all,  this  Court’s  precedents  had  repeatedly  allowed  non-
unanimous juries in state criminal cases.  In that situation, 
the Courts of Appeals have consistently held that an attor-
ney is not ineffective for failing to anticipate or advocate for 
the overruling of a  constitutional precedent of this Court.
See, e.g., Walker v. United States, 810 F. 3d 568, 577 (CA8 
2016);  United  States  v.  Smith,  241  F. 3d  546,  548  (CA7 
2001); Honeycutt v. Mahoney, 698 F. 2d 213, 216–217 (CA4 
1983);  see  also  Steiner  v.  United  States,  940  F. 3d  1282, 
1293 (CA11 2019) (per curiam); Snider v. United States, 908 
F. 3d  183,  192  (CA6  2018);  Green  v.  Johnson,  116  F. 3d 
1115, 1125 (CA5 1997).

For those reasons, the reliance interests at stake in this 
case  are  not  especially  substantial,  and  they  do  not  man-
date adherence to Apodaca.9 

—————— 

8 In Allen v. Hardy, 478 U. S. 255 (1986) (per curiam), this Court con-
cluded—without briefing or oral argument—that Batson would not apply 
retroactively.  Under the well-settled Teague principles, there should be 
no  doubt  that  today’s  decision  likewise  will  not  apply  retroactively  on 
collateral review. 

9 JUSTICE ALITO’s characteristically incisive dissent rests largely on his