Opinion ID: 779188
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Habeas standards.

Text: 28 In 1996, Congress enacted the Anti-terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (AEDPA), codified at 28 U.S.C. § 2254, in which it imposed new constraints on the federal courts' ability to grant habeas relief from state court judgments. Under AEDPA, when a federal court reviews a state court's ruling on federal law, or its application of federal law to a particular set of facts, the state court's decision must stand unless it is contrary to, or an unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1). When a federal court reviews a state court's findings of fact, its decision must stand unless it was based on an unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the evidence presented in a State court proceeding. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(2). 29 The Supreme Court has provided authoritative guidance on how federal courts are to review legal and mixed determinations under § 2254(d)(1). See Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S. 362, 413, 120 S.Ct. 1495, 146 L.Ed.2d 389 (2000). A state-court decision is contrary to the Supreme Court's clearly established precedent if the state court applies a rule that contradicts the governing law set forth in [Supreme Court] cases. Id. at 405, 120 S.Ct. 1495. A decision is also contrary if it confronts a set of facts that are materially indistinguishable from a decision of this Court and nevertheless arrives at a result different from our precedent. Id. at 406, 120 S.Ct. 1495. 30 The unreasonable application standard addresses a different part of the court's analysis. It allows habeas relief when the state court correctly identifies the governing legal rule but applies it unreasonably to the facts of a particular prisoner's case. Id. at 407-08, 120 S.Ct. 1495. This standard will be met if the state court's application of clearly established federal law was objectively unreasonable. Id. at 409, 120 S.Ct. 1495. It is not, however, met by a merely incorrect application of federal law. Id. at 410, 120 S.Ct. 1495. 31