Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/21pdf/20-826_p702.pdf
Page Number: 5

Cite as:  596 U. S. ____ (2022) 

1 

Opinion of the Court 

NOTICE:  This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the 
preliminary  print  of  the  United  States  Reports.  Readers  are  requested  to 
notify the Reporter of Decisions, Supreme Court of the United States, Wash-
ington, D. C. 20543, of any typographical or other formal errors, in order that 
corrections may be made before the preliminary print goes to press. 

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES 

_________________ 

No. 20–826 
_________________ 

MIKE BROWN, ACTING WARDEN, PETITIONER 
v. ERVINE DAVENPORT 

ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF 
APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT 

[April 21, 2022] 

JUSTICE GORSUCH delivered the opinion of the Court. 
After a state court determines that an error at trial did 
not  prejudice  a  criminal  defendant,  may  a  federal  court 
grant habeas relief based solely on its independent assess-
ment of the error’s prejudicial effect under Brecht v. Abra-
hamson, 507 U. S. 619 (1993)?  Or must a federal court also 
evaluate the state court’s decision under the Antiterrorism 
and  Effective  Death  Penalty  Act  of  1996  (AEDPA)?  The 
Sixth Circuit ruled that an individual who satisfies Brecht 
alone is entitled to habeas relief.  This was mistaken.  When 
a state court has ruled on the merits of a state prisoner’s 
claim, a federal court cannot grant relief without first ap-
plying both the test this Court outlined in Brecht and the 
one Congress prescribed in AEDPA. 

I 
A 
One evening in 2007, Annette White attended a gather-
ing with Ervine Davenport.  On the drive home, Mr. Dav-
enport killed Ms. White.  At trial, the only questions con-
cerned why and how.  Mr. Davenport claimed self-defense
and testified to that effect.  On his account, Ms. White grew