Opinion ID: 78178
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Clearly Established Law Requirement

Text: The Supreme Court has addressed the application of § 2254(d) in some detail. See Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S. 362, 120 S.Ct. 1495, 146 L.Ed.2d 389 (1999). In Williams, the Court addressed the clearly established law requirement of § 2254(d)(1) before turning to the contrary to, or an unreasonable application of, requirement. Id. at 379, 120 S.Ct. at 1505-06. The Williams Court highlighted the importance of the clause immediately following the clearly established law requirement, limiting the area of relevant law to that `determined by the Supreme Court of the United States.' Id. at 381, 120 S.Ct. at 1506 (quoting 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1)). The Court then held that [i]f this Court has not broken sufficient legal ground to establish an asked-for constitutional principle, the lower federal courts cannot themselves establish such a principle with clarity sufficient to satisfy the AEDPA bar. Id., 120 S.Ct. at 1506-07. In Lockyer v. Andrade, 538 U.S. 63, 71, 123 S.Ct. 1166, 1172, 155 L.Ed.2d 144 (2003) (quoting Williams, 529 U.S. at 412, 120 S.Ct. at 1499), the Supreme Court subsequently held that the clearly established law requirement refers to holdings, as opposed to dicta, of [the] ... Court's decisions as of the time of the relevant state-court decision. We have held that the clearly established law requirement of § 2254(d)(1) does not include the law of the lower federal courts. See Putman v. Head, 268 F.3d 1223, 1241 (11th Cir.2001). Moreover, when no Supreme Court precedent is on point, we have held that a state court's conclusion cannot be contrary to clearly established Federal law as determined by the U.S. Supreme Court. Washington v. Crosby, 324 F.3d 1263, 1265 (11th Cir.2003).