Document: 533 U.S. 656121 S.Ct. 2478150 L.Ed.2d 632 NOTICE: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the preliminary print of United States Reports. Readers are requested notify Reporter Decisions, Supreme Court States, Washington, D. C. 20543, any typographical or other errors, order that corrections may be made goes press.MELVIN TYLER, PETITIONERv.BURL CAIN, WARDEN No. 00-5961. SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES Argued April 16, 2001Decided June 28, 2001 Syllabus After petitioner Tyler was convicted second-degree murder and his conviction affirmed on appeal, he filed five state petitions for postconviction relief a federal habeas petition, all which were denied. this decided Cage v. Louisiana, 498 39-under jury instruction unconstitutional if there reasonable likelihood understood it allow without proof beyond doubt-Tyler sixth claiming trial substantively identical one condemned Cage. The State District denied relief, affirmed. Seeking pursue claim court, moved Fifth Circuit permission file second application, as required by Antiterrorism Effective Death Penalty Act 1996 (AEDPA). court granted motion. then proceeded merits Tyler's relief. Although affirmed, stated had erred failing first determine whether satisfied AEDPA's successive standard, requires district dismiss application unless, relevant here, applicant "shows" "claim relies new rule constitutional law, retroactive cases collateral review Court, previously unavailable." 2244(b)(2)(A) (emphasis added). Relying precedent, concluded did not meet standard. Held: "made Court," within meaning 2244(b)(2)(A). Pp. 4-11. (a) Based 2244(b)(2)(A)'s plain when read whole, "made" means "held." Under statute, only entity can "ma[k]e" retroactive. becomes retroactive, decisions lower combined action courts, but simply Court. way can, itself, lay out construct rule's effect through holding. does merely establishes principles retroactivity leaves their courts. In such an event, (or perhaps combination courts), develops legal conclusion derived from those principles. statute uses word "made," "held," Congress permitted use synonyms see Williams Taylor, 529 362, "held" context. interpretation necessary proper implementation structure. stringent 30-day time period 2244(b)(3)(D) imposes courts appeals determining "makes prima facie showing [it] satisfies [second standard]," 2244(b)(3)(C), suggests do have engage difficult analysis questions instance, need rely holdings. 5-7. (b) has been ... Court." make itself neither Sullivan 508 275, 279. contends Sullivan's reasoning makes clear warranted Teague Lane, 489 288, 311-313, held falls two narrow exceptions general nonretroactivity. However, most that, based Teague's principles, should review. It clear, however, done so. over course cases, so here. 7-10. (c) declines today. Because second, unless showed already cannot decide today review, because decision will help case. Any statement Cage's would dictum, comment further issue. 10-11. 218 F.3d 744, ON WRIT CERTIORARI TO APPEALS FOR FIFTH CIRCUIT Thomas, J., delivered Rehnquist, O'Connor, Scalia, Kennedy, JJ., joined. Opinion Justice Thomas 1 39 (1990) (per curiam), doubt.1 case, we must 28 U.S.C. (1994 ed., Supp. V). We hold not. 2 * During fight with estranged girlfriend March 1975, Melvin shot killed 20-day-old daughter. A found guilty murder, appeal. sentencing, assiduously sought By 1986, petitions, See ex rel. Blackburn, 494 So. 2d 1171 (La. 1986); Tyler, 446 1226 1984); State, 437 1142 1983); 430 92 Maggio, 428 483 1982). He next unsuccessful well. Butler, 88cv4929 (ED La.), aff'd, Whitley, 920 F.2d 929 (CA5 1990). Court's Cage, continued efforts. defining doubt at raising claim. Louisiana Cain, 684 950 (1996). 3 early 1997, returned court. claim, Appeals corpus (AEDPA), 110 Stat. 1214.2 recognized could grant motion "a showing," unavailable," Finding requisite showing, motion, thereby allowing petition 4 although apply retroactively, App. 5-7 (citing Humphrey 138 552 1998) (en banc)), entitled AEDPA, prisoner prevail court's "was contrary to, involved unreasonable of, clearly established Federal determined States." 2254(d)(1). Concluding overcome barrier, petition. 5 Judgt. reported 744 2000). stated, "satisfied standard." 15. AEDPA unavailable,"3 added); 2244(b)(4). Brown Lensing, 171 1031 1999); re Smith, 142 832 1998), standard "could show renders retroactively applicable review." 6 Courts divided question Compare Rodriguez Superintendent, 139 270 (CA1 (holding Court); Brown, supra (same); Hill, 113 181 (CA11 1997) (same), West Vaughn, 204 53 (CA3 2000) review). To resolve conflict, certiorari. 531 1051 (2000). II 7 greatly restricts power award prisoners who applications. If asserts presented previous dismissed cases. 2244(b)(1). And exceptions. One these claims predicated newly discovered facts call into accuracy verdict. 2244(b)(2)(B). certain relying rules law. 8 latter exception concerns us Specifically, covers "rel[y] provision three prerequisites obtaining petition: First, "new rule" law; Court"; third, "previously parties ask interpret requirement; respondent dispute created text conclude and, thus, requirement 9 As commonly defined, several alternative meanings, none entirely free ambiguity. See, e.g., Webster's Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary 718-719 (1991) (defining "to make" cause happen," exist, occur appear," construct," act way"). Out context, thus unclear 2244(b)(2)(A), how term understood. not, construe statutory terms vacuum. Rather, words "in context view place overall scheme." Davis Michigan Dept. Treasury, 803, 809 (1989). clause reads follows: "[A] (Emphasis added.) Quite significantly, under provision, 10 "lay construct" effect, "cause" occur, developed Court.4 review" holds retroactive.5 11 sure, But interpreting another require much. 362 (2000), phrase "clearly States," 2254(d)(1) added), "refers holdings, opposed dicta, decisions," id., 412. same. Congress, needless say, statute. just "determined" 2254(d)(1), 12 note our structure AEDPA. "shall move appropriate authorizing consider application." 2244(b)(3)(A). 30 days. 2244(b)(3)(D). limited time, standard]." 2244(b)(3)(C). unlikely determination allotted more than holdings retroactivity. limit instance. B 13 purposes 2244(b)(1)(A), holding particular violated Due Process Clause. 14 argues, subsequent 275 (1993), error structural-i.e., amenable harmless-error "will always invalidate conviction." U.S., Conceding render 288 Teague, if, Id., 311-313 (plurality opinion). also O'Dell Netherland, 521 151, 156-157 (1997). here "watershed criminal procedure implicating fundamental fairness proceeding." Graham Collins, 506 U. S 461, 478 (1993). fall exception, requirements: Infringement "seriously diminish accurate conviction," " ' "alter understanding bedrock procedural elements" essential Sawyer 497 227, 242 (quoting supra, 311 opinion), turn quoting Mackey 401 667, 693 (1971) (Harlan, concurring judgments part dissenting part)). 15 According demonstrates both prongs exception. notes, repeatedly emphasized fundamentally undermines reliability trial's outcome. contends, central point deprives defendant element fairness: right guilt doubt. arguments fail persuade, however. outlined What review.6 16 Breyer observes post, (dissenting disagree this. even so, Multiple necessarily dictate rule. structural error. There no case structural-error fit structural, generally Arizona Fulminante, 499 279 (1991), coextensive exception,7 logically met. III 17 Finally, disagree. 2244(b)(4) ("A shall authorized shows requirements section"); section 2254 prior unavailable"). decline 18 19 judgment 20 ordered. 21 opinion. 22 Breyer, opinion, Stevens, Souter, Ginsburg, Notes: observed juror have" interpreted issue permit finding proof. 41. Estelle McGuire, 502 62, 72, n. inquiry applied unconstitutionally, it. Victor Nebraska, 511 1, (1994) ("The present instructions insufficient [constitutional] standard"). "[b]efore 2244(b)(3)(A) differs applicants satisfy obtain noted above, authorize filing determines "prima showing" survive dismissal actually "sho[w]" Similarly, binding. Cf. Seminole Tribe Fla. Florida, 517 44, 67 (1996) (contrasting dictum include final disposition well preceding determinations "necessary result" added)). argues mean create anomaly: When obvious never hear Thus, concludes, whenever "principles" decisions, appeals, indicate appropriate. argument flawed, disagreed legislative establish rules, license policy grounds. Connecticut Nat. Bank Germain, 503 249, 253-254 (1992). Second, "anomalous" result predicts speculative best, discretion certiorari reached divergent results. reject attempt find support Adams Evatt, 1001 (1994). Adams, vacated Fourth Circuit, remanded consideration light Sullivan. Our order, "final merits." Henry Rock 376 776, 777 (1964) curiam). indicated "intervening developments," "reasonable probability" premise relied affect outcome litigation. Lawrence Chater, 516 163, 167 explained available "alter[s] (1989) part) Classifying alter elements. Nor said relating due process "fundamental process," opinion)) understanding. Sawyer, 244 Caldwell Mississippi, 472 320 (1985), though "added existing guarantee protection against unfairness"); (1997) Simmons South Carolina, 512 154 (1994), described serving "one hallmarks 175 (O'Connor, J, judgment), exception). On contrary, reserved truly "watershed" rules. O'Dell, 167; Caspari Bohlen, 510 383, 396 (describing "groundbreaking"); (1993) (explaining small core rules," seriously enhance "requir[e] 'observance procedures implicit concept ordered liberty' ") (internal quotation marks omitted)); Saffle Parks, 484, 495 (focusing "primacy centrality" rule). recognized, watershed "ha[s] yet emerge." 243 313 opinion)); Graham, 478. 23 concurring. 24 I join write separately explain fully circumstances 25 dicta . Court" ante, 5-6; cf. 412 clearest course, where expressly But, recognizes, single sine qua non satisfaction provision. Ante, 9. instead multiple Ibid. syllogistic relationship Case type applies Two given type, follows circumstances, 26 between strictly logical-i.e., provide retroactively. observes, "[t]he 'ma[k]e' courts." 6. 27 relatively easy demonstrate logical respect articulated places 'certain kinds primary, private individual conduct law-making authority proscribe.' 307 opinion) 692 species lawmaking proscribe, its alone, resort matter less straightforward procedure," announcing conceivably infringement diminish[es] 315, 'alter[s] elements proceeding,' Mackey, part)); (1990), many "applies retroactively" applying "precise contours" "may discern," "ma[king]" likely subjective self-conscious comes all, manageable strict necessity, While necessity 8-10, manner. 29 whom Ginsburg join, dissenting. Constitution inaccurately defined doubt," permitting convict "based degree below Clause." Here "retroactive believe has. 31 taken together. That majority says, (among things) (1) 315 (2) vitiate conviction,' part)) deleted). 32 after mentioned. Aiken, 965 1306, 1312 (CA4 1992), vacated, (1994); Skelton 1037, 1045 (CA5), cert. denied, 833 violation ever count harmless answered negative. concluding, reasoned misdescribing "vitiates jury's findings," "basic reliably serve function." Sullivan, 281 original; internal omitted). situation "there verdict Sixth Amendment." 280. 33 reason (in language) trial, omitted; emphasis "all findings" untrustworthy, 281, "diminish deprivation protection" needed "serve function," omitted), "bedrock elemen[t]," significantly "alter[ed]" pre-existing 311. what every considered concluded. Tillman Cook, 215 1116, 1122 (CA10), 1055 (2000); 53, 61, 2000); Gaines Kelly, 202 598, 604-605 (CA2 552, 553 (CA5) banc), 525 935 (1998); 41 175, 178-179 1994), 515 1124 (1995); Nutter White, 1154, 1158 1994). 832, 835-836 (concluding explicit purposes); Bay Correctional Ctr., 270, 275-276 181, 184 (same). deny 34 Consequently, known Amendment, logic. men mortal Socrates man, Three mortal. party's expectation measures damages breach contract Circumstances X, Y, Z binding contract, same awarded breach. Ordinarily, set category simultaneously things being equal, normal characteristics members circumstances. 35 says "holding" nature 8-9. fails identify meaningful difference definition handful instances errors namely, deprive 'basic protectio[n]' 'trial function vehicle innocence' 'no punishment regarded fair.' 279, 310 Rose Clark, 570, 577-578 (1986)); Neder 527 (1999) (identifying six error, including structural). principle adds "structural error" alone encompass, undermine accuracy. additional poses problem language clearer 36 Of points out, identifying th[e] fair trial. 10, 7. "altering" No denies one. "Whether misdescription burden violates Clause certainly open Cage." F.3d, 178; Gaines, 606-607 (noting led reversals numerous convictions similar instruction); Humphrey, 544 1188, 1192 App.) upheld like invalidated Cage), 550 627 Amendment," 280, altered significance 37 Insofar suggest sufficiently "new" enough" qualify establishing requirement. Rather focus "degree newness" rule, emphasize form process. 311-312 opinion); 693-694 part); "narrow rebuttal" "has hardly alter[ed] proceeding" original)); double jeopardy bar noncapital sentencing unfair rather hinder accuracy); 242-244 "provid[ed] measure prohibition prosecutorial remarks proceeding "fundamentally unfair" "an 'absolute prerequisite fairness' exception) 314 opinion)). 38 why (and therefore upon courts) lacks enough force "make" ("We adhere mere obiter well-established rationale results earlier decisions. issues portions bound"); Burnham Superior Cal., County Marin, 604, 613, (exclusive basis dicta). technical about constitutes beside point. (majority (stating explanation "held"). "made." refers law V) agree O'Connor-as Court-when describing different she "[w]hen 'made' (concurring understand apparent "more self-conscious." sometimes requirements. used unmistakably defective reasonable-doubt proceeding. sufficient applicable. 40 add points. nothing statute's purpose favors, let requires, majority's conclusion. purpose, far surmise, dictated own Dyer Calderon, 151 970, 993-995 (CA9) banc) (O'Scannlain, dissenting) (rejecting proposition purposes), 1033 Clemmons Delo, 124 944, 955, (CA8 (assuming, deciding, precedent 523 1088 (1998), themselves adopted factors apply, Smith Groose, 205 1045, 1054 (CA8) prosecution's contradictory theories exception), sub nom. Gammon 985 Sanders 900 601, 1990) (same, unknowing material, perjured testimony Constitution). Here, consistent spoken. consequence complexity. today's repeat triggered prisoner's (a "second successive" barred issue) some presents posture allows status "holding." Then, takes meant said, take advantage now-clearly-made-applicable restate obvious, explicitly Penry Lynaugh, 492 302, 330 Eighth Amendment prohibits execution persons mental retardation, 42 Even complex route remain limitations 1-year run initially right. 2244(d)(1)(C) (limitations runs "the date asserted review"). Otherwise, approach generate complexity, along attendant risk confusion, serious unfairness. 43 approach. fear consequences. For reasons, respect, dissent.

Category: 0