Document: 521 U.S. 320117 S.Ct. 2059138 L.Ed.2d 481 Aaron LINDH, Petitioner,v.James P. MURPHY, Warden. No. 96-6298. Supreme Court of the United States Argued April 14, 1997. Decided June 23, Syllabus* Wisconsin tried petitioner Lindh on noncapital murder and attempted charges. In response to his insanity defense, State called a psychiatrist who had examined but come under criminal investigation for sexual exploitation patients before trial began. Lindh's attempt question doctor about that in hopes showing doctor's interest currying favor with was barred by court, convicted. He denied relief direct appeal, which he claimed violation Confrontation Clause. raised claim again federal habeas corpus application, denied, promptly appealed. Shortly after oral argument Seventh Circuit, Antiterrorism Effective Death Penalty Act 1996 (Act) amended statute. Following an en banc rehearing consider Act's impact, court held amendments chapter 153 Title 28, governs all proceedings, generally apply cases pending date enactment; applying new version 28 U.S.C.A. §2254(d)- standards affecting entitlement relief-to would not have retroactive effect barring its application Landgraf v. USI Film Products, 511 244, 114 1483, 128 229, because it attach legal consequences events preceding statute applied case. Held: Since provisions Chapter only filed became effective, they do such as Lindh's. Pp. ____-____. (a) errs arguing whenever face could litigation enactment, there are two alternative sources rules determine ultimate temporal reach: either Congress's express command or default rule governing retroactivity. Normal construction determining statute's reach whether terms produce effect. Although Landgraf's deny when otherwise result, other may remove even possibility retroactivity (as rendering statutory provision wholly inapplicable particular case), argues recognition negative implication here. (b) The reveals general intent enactment. revised proceedings. Then §107 created entirely 154 proceedings capital cases, special favorable those meet certain conditions. Section 107(c) expressly applies cases. is were meant If Congress reasonably concerned ensure different explains fact did enact similar 153. Had chapters evolved separately been joined together at last minute, acquired mandate, might intended same each chapter, careless rough-and-tumble. But circumstances here: §107(c) added introduced single bill. §107(c)'s insertion thus illustrates familiar implications disparate strongest portions treated differently already being considered simultaneously language raising inserted. See Field Mans, 516 ----, 116 437, 133 351. Respondent's one competing explanation-that fix ambiguity over qualify 154's rules-is too remote displace straightforward inference Finally, while §2264(b)-which enacted within provides §§2254(d) (e) cases-does speak present issue flawless clarity, tends confirm interpretation adopted It shows assumed absence §2264(b), 96 F.3d 856 (C.A.7), reversed remanded. SOUTER, J., delivered opinion Court, STEVENS, O'CONNOR, GINSBURG, BREYER, JJ., joined.—REHNQUIST, C.J., dissenting opinion, SCALIA, KENNEDY, THOMAS, joined. James S. Liebman, New York City, petitioner. Sally L. Wellman, Madison, WI, respondent. Justice SOUTER Court. 1 1996, 110 Stat. 1214, signed into law 24, §2254(d) (Supp.1997). this case section dealing petitions applications passed. We hold does not. 2 * multiple charges murder. spoken immediately killings later some patients. Although, trial, ask investigation, hoping suggest witness's State, questioning. 3 On Clause National Constitution, despite denial relief, sought neither review nor state collateral review. Instead, July 9, 1992, District argued claim. When October 1995, appealed Circuit. there, however, amended, Circuit ordered be reheard see and, if so, how should treated. 4 Appeals 856, 863 (C.A.7 1996). read itself answering questions newly like Lindh's, id., 861-863, turned Court's recent decision 229 (1994). that, where clearly mandate effect, ostensibly indicated genuinely effect; judicial presumption against bar application. concluded "new consequences'' applicable F.3d, 863-867 (citing Landgraf, supra, 270, S.Ct., 1499-1500). authority statute, then merits. 868-877. 5 Circuit's pending, conflicts holdings Edens Hannigan, 87 1109, 1112, n. (C.A.10 1996), Boria Keane, 90 36, 37-38 (C.A.2 1996) (per curiam). accord §2253(c) Hunter States, 101 1565, 1568-1573 (C.A.11 (en banc) (relying cases). granted certiorari limited case, we now reverse. II 6 Before getting itself, address Wisconsin's occurred enacted, "express command'' from our rule. said 7 " [w]hen implicates suit, court's first task has prescribed proper reach. done course, no need resort rules. When, contains command, must . operate retroactively, traditional teaches govern absent clear congressional favoring result.'' 280, 1505. 8 insists means regarding reach, retroactivity, exclusion interpretation. Brief Respondent 9-14; also 1569 (suggesting announced clear-statement statutes). 9 reading, ignores context. quoted disposed practice stands time represented retreat occasionally conflicting position statutes disfavored. answer given no, reaffirmed requiring supported statement. referred command[s],'' "unambiguous directive[s],'' reaffirm rule, there. 263, 1495-1496 ("unambiguous directive'' necessary authorize "retroactive application''); 264, 1496 (statutes "will construed unless their requires result'') (internal quotation marks citation omitted); 272-273, 1500 ("Requiring assures affirmatively potential unfairness 286, 1508 (finding "no evidence intent'' rebut "presumption retroactivity''); (Scalia, concurring judgment) (agreeing "a legislative enactment substantive rights retroactively statement contrary''). 10 generally, normal apply. sum, term Lindh, will applied, if, find applicable; prospective, degree prospectivity identified course order Lindh. III 11 (except makes select I more less independent titles1 providing revision main things. First, §§101-106, amends §2244 §§2253-2255 Code, courts.2 1217-1221. Then, creates party, meets conditions, including appointment postconviction counsel proceedings.3 1221-1226. §107(c), "Chapter shall Act.'' 1226. 12 indicating implicitly run Act. significance becomes apparent realizes applicable, well purely procedural effects. merely strict sense (say, setting deadlines filing disposition, §§2263, 2266 (Supp.1997); 1223, 1224-1226), natural expectation U.S., 275, 1502 (noting changes "may often suits arising without concerns retroactivity''). more, revisions prior change proof persuasion way state, goes beyond "mere'' procedure affect relief. §2264(b) (Supp.1997), 1223 (incorporating standard §2254(d)). (having so). While true "procedural'' so fall (albeit qualified) approval latest word subject passed, taken opinion's cautious silence kind exemplified counseling wisdom explicit wanted pending. amount required disfavored way,4 serve make matter fit points reached. (As difficult issues, settle them.) 13 next point significant purposes everything just observed made As noted, (in cases) If, then, 153, latter 14 Nothing, indeed, treatment. This example, process, passed Under circumstances, real rough-and-tumble thought careful whereas someone else happened think inserting 154. begun life independently Houses Congress,5 bill Senate (S.735) what added.6 Both chapters, therefore, mind added. Nor anything addition likely than anything, contrary true, discussion indicate. 15 treatments 446 (1995) ("The apparently deliberate contrast, stronger inference, contrasting sections originally relevant respects ''). added, is, thoughtful member most reader sees inference. 16 strength diminished explanation suggested, 11-12, follows. expedited adjudication met terms, (for State's benefit) adequate represent indigent applicants expense. Thus, §2261(b) [t]his establishes mechanism appointment, compensation, payment reasonable expenses competent post-conviction brought prisoners '' 1221-1222. There quoted, runs, mechanism,'' leaving established idea tense "establishes'' out "established'' mechanism, suggesting provide "cases pending'' eliminate alike. 17 not, very plausible. strain supposed rest. Why expediting disfavor part promote sound resolution prisoners' encourage? leave slower track, seems unlikely courts interpreted §2261(b). Second, anyone seen lurking dispatched far simpler fashion enacting §107(c); drafter needed insert three words §2261(b), refer "establishes mechanism.'' simply isn't plausible sensitive delphic choose it. Indeed, (on hypothesis) least uncertain clarify, since set up mechanisms effective hypothesis fixing ambiguity, 18 cites confirming reading agree adopt. 2264(b) [f]ollowing subsections (a), (d), §2254, claims [subject consideration] it.'' 1223. before, §2254 Its subsection existed Act, remedy law. previously lettered (d) (dealing correctness accorded factual findings production records evidentiary sufficiency challenged, respectively) eliminated old relettered (f); place inserted followed (e), them with, among things, adequacy determinations bearing right determinations. 1219. these refers them. 19 Leaving aside reference §2254(a) moment, why provided specifically generally? One lies §2264(a), specially exhaustion requirement (subject exceptions), restricting "raised decided merits 862-863. assumes (and assume sake argument) §2264(a) supersedes requirements remedies imposed §§2254(b) (c).7 on, avoid any suggestion supersede (c) exhaustion, neighboring things status unlikely. hard imagine superseding applicability Anyone (which fulfill conditions) think, feared addressed through §2264(b). therefore function accordance (e). 20 Continuing assumption replaces rather complements §2254's provisions, can fact, supportive §107(c). both potentially took later. utility, cases; unquestionably alike utility 154, confirms provision, parts 153) 21 analysis consistent, turn, failure §§2254(f), (g), (h), (i). Subsections (f) (g) deal producing admissibility evidence. obviously attached "pending'' (only letter designations amended), turn covered (h) (i), new; start hypotheses reasons (i) deal, respectively, proceeding, irrelevance counsel's performance previous 1219-1220. available U.S.C. §848(q)(4)(B) authorized And reason benefit dealt §2261(e), 1222. good references subsequently thing. 22 loose end. 2254(a) peculiar relevance provision; (g). cases? No leaps us. All say world silk purses pigs' ears, purse art drafting. 23 upshot accords coherence §§107(c) rival examined. That enough. effective. Because these, reverse judgment remand further consistent opinion. 24 ordered. 25 Chief REHNQUIST, whom THOMAS join, dissenting. 26 conducts truncated inquiry intent, believe, reaches wrong result. begins, uncontroversially enough, observing (AEDPA) depends upon rely "normal rules'' construction. Ante, __. proceeds, disregard law-which oddly disparages manifestations "Landgraf's rule,'' ibid. -in permissible, controlling, draws text. instead interpret AEDPA light whole longstanding jurisprudence, accordingly (Supp.1997) 27 resolved 1505, Here, plainly no. other, Given silence, still guided principles developed years. relies canon interpretation, expressio unius est exclusio alterius, others. rests almost drawn pertaining regards necessary, best possible. Certainly, omission signal equally plausible, alternatives. 29 conditioned antecedent events-namely, establishing qualifying representation procedures-Congress perceived greater likelihood otherwise, fail chapter's characteristically extended pendency attacks convictions,1 concern acquiescence defendants' dilatory tactics evidenced limits indeed title "Antiterrorism 1996''), desired exacting clarity Or third, Congress, intending definitely disagreement many sort questions, using ordinary presumptions. 30 None inferences superior rejects first, ante, __-__, "implausible'' solution "unlikely'' ambiguity. nearly implausible contention show wished chose simplest so. But, contingent nature, solve adopted: stating 31 finds additional support believes "tends confirm,'' __, analysis. 2264 forbids narrow exceptions) district considering defendants court. provides, 2254 [contained 153], properly section, irrelevant 32 somewhat tortured backhanded making §§2254(a), (but rest convincing. For thing, phrased timing containing speaks tense, conducted Even tellingly, concedes blandly describes "loose end,'' alter §2254(a), 33 procedures prisoners. 2264(b), clarification courts.'' Without clarification, doubt exist 34 Petitioner protests supplanting "outlandish'' results, 26, conclusion (although ultimately otherwise). result "outlandish,'' refuse chosen obtain appreciate litigating incentives facing defendants. Noncapital defendants, serving sentences prison, file seeking released, presumably soon They incentive delay. quite require courts, apparatus opportunity claims. impending execution, seek executed. Their incentive, utilize every possible delay carrying sentence. needlessly prolong §2264(a)'s sufficient protection States' interests exhaustion.2 35 At stops. Based weak designation strained §2264, concludes impliedly go principles, would. 36 1502; Beazell Ohio, 269 167, 170-171, 46 68, 68-69, 70 L.Ed. 216 (1925); Ex parte Collett, 337 55, 71, 69 944, 952, 93 1207 (1949); Dobbert Florida, 432 282, 293-294, 97 2290, 2298-2299, 53 344 (1977); Collins Youngblood, 497 37, 45, 2715, 2720-2721, 111 (1990). "rules regulate secondary primary conduct.'' 1502. conduct murdered people sheriff's office City-County Building Wisconsin. Obviously, purports past conduct. constituted precedents, existing law, though earlier. proceeding here sense, tertiary actual prohibited defendant committed Rather, proceeding. 2254(d), precise here, alters evaluated, procedural. Cf. Horning Columbia, 254 135, 139, 41 53, 54, 65 185 (1920) (applying harmless-error changed judgments case). 37 usually prospective forms 273, 1501; Duplex Printing Press Co. Deering, 443, 464, 172, 175-176, 349 (1921); American Steel Foundries Tri-City Central Trades Council, 257 184, 201, 42 72, 75-76, 66 189 Hall Beals, 396 48, 200, 201-202, 214 (1969); Kaiser Aluminum & Chemical Corp. Bonjorno, 494 827, 852, 1570, 1584-1585, 108 842 (1990) concurring). Unlike damages actions, "quintessentially backward looking,'' 1506, writ nature. Habeas compensate wrongful incarceration, punish imposing Lane Williams, 455 624, 631, 102 1322, 1326-1327, 71 508 (1982). challenge unlawful custody, issues prevents illegal custody. Preiser Rodriguez, 411 475, 489, 494, 1827, 1836, 1838-1839, 439 (1973). 38 regularly ousting jurisdiction litigation.3 274, 1501-1502; Bruner 343 112, 116-117, 8, 72 581, 584 786 (1952) ("Congress altered nature validity petitioner's Government's liability reduced number tribunals hear liabilities''); Hallowell Commons, 239 506, 508, 202, 203, 60 409 (1916); Sherman Grinnell, 123 679, 680, 260, 261, 278 (1887); Assessors Osbornes, Wall. 567, 575, 748 (1869); McCardle, 514, 264 (1868); Insurance Ritchie, 541, 544-545, 540 (1866). ""speak power obligations parties.''' (quoting Republic Nat. Bank Miami 506 80, 100, 113 554, 565, 121 474 (1992) (Thomas, concurring)); 269, 1499, ("Our explained, purpose conferring eliminating permit forbid exercise power-so event moment exercised''). principle hand. 39 jurisdictional. Brown Allen, 460, 73 397, 408-409, 469 (1953) ("Jurisdiction controlled statute''); Sumner Mata, 449 539, 548, 2, 764, 770 722 (1981) codification successor "the grant courts,' 1966 embodied [now codified, AEDPA, §2254(e)] limitations jurisdiction'' 485, 1833-1834, (1973))); cf. Arkansas Farm Credit Servs. Ark., 520 117 1776, 1778, --- ---- (1997) (explaining Tax Injunction Act-which operative enjoin '')-is "first foremost vehicle limit drastically interfere important local collection taxes'' quotations omitted)). jurisdictional, shares salient characteristic jurisdictional statutes: commands individuals. 2254(d) prosecutors; prescribes proscribes private directly providing, [a]n behalf person custody pursuant (emphasis added). 40 Whether approach framed effect,'' majority put it, activity regulates,'' SCALIA's concurrence 291, 1524 (SCALIA, judgment), procedural, jurisdiction-ousting play decision. These regulating removing give specified circumstances. Our strongly direction intrinsic corpus, modifications courts' necessarily stripe-procedural, courts. surprising parties pointed us found modification scope To contrary, respondent amici uniform body writ, see, e.g., Gusik Schilder, 340 128, 131-133, 4, 149, 151-153, 95 146 (1950) 1948 claims); Smith Yeager, 393 122, 124-125, 89 277, 278-279, 246 (1968) Carafas LaVallee, 391 234, 239, 88 1556, 1560, 554 (same); Felker Turpin, 518 2333, 135 827 (1996) changes, Stone Powell, 428 465, 495, 38, 3037, 3052-3053, 49 1067 (1976) (rejecting prospectively); 549-551, 765, 770-771 case); Wainwright Sykes, 433 2497, 594 (1977) cause prejudice doctrine Brecht Abrahamson, 507 619, 638-639, 1710, 1722-1723, 353 (1993) incomplete, believe reached affirm Appeals. syllabus constitutes prepared Reporter Decisions convenience reader. Detroit Timber Lumber Co., 200 321, 337, 287, 50 499. titles restitution victims crime (Title II), various aspects international terrorism (Titles II, III, IV, VII, VIII), restrictions kinds weapons explosives V VI), miscellaneous items IX). 1214-1217. 103 Rule Federal Rules Appellate Procedure. 1218. adds "technical amendment'' expert investigative fees defense §848(q). Nordic Village, Inc., 503 30, 34-37, 112 1011, 1014-1016, 181 (1992), existence "plausible'' interpretations "unambiguous'' expression waiver sovereign immunity. truly "retroactive'' adequately involved sustain Graham Goodcell, 282 409, 416-420, 51 186, 189-190, 75 415 (1931) (holding "was manifestly according terms'' tax spelled meticulously defined absurd); Automobile Club Mich. Commissioner, 180, 77 707, 709-710, 746 (1957) authorizing Commissioner Internal Revenue correct rulings regulations "retroactively'' authorization Commissioner's action spoke explicitly "retroactivity''); Zacks, 375 59, 65-67, 84 178, 181-183, (1963) (declining reopening creating grace periods law). Seminole Tribe Fla. 517 1114, 1118, 134 252 abrogation Eleventh Amendment immunity went granting contemplated State'' numerous Act). suggested following unenacted precursor possibly qualified effect: [This Act] commenced 1494 added; internal omitted). qualify, use absolute distinguishes 514 527, 531-532, 115 1611, 1615-1616, 131 608 "unequivocally expressed'' [a]ny civil recovery internal-revenue alleged erroneously illegally assessed collected'') Williams) id. 1620 concurring) [clear-statement] waivers meaning 861 much. 15. 1199, offered Senator Dole May 25, §607(c) 141 Cong. Rec. S7553, S7567 (May 1995). A comparison S.735 stood 1, 1995 735 7, substitution reform substantially amendment ways open doubt: force replacing mean classes (those categories able insist discovered evidence, consequence prevent prisoner going evading §2254(e)'s §2254(d)'s new, highly deferential evaluating rulings. perfectly content prisoner's choice straight free waive get explained deprive tools hard-pressed reason, especially enhance capacities control own adjudications. appear define §2254(c), unexhausted merits, §2254(b)(2), state's shown express, §2254(b)(3). states advantages parties, suggests effects supplement replacement §2254(b) (c). Nevertheless, stated text, understanding complementing one. Forceful arguments side, resolve conflict See, Pet. Corpus re 96-5679, p. (describing nine years months deny, Ninth affirm, petition). conclusions Powell Committee, convened problems whose recommendations based. Judicial Conference Ad Hoc Committee Capital Cases, Report Proposal (Aug. 1989). Committee's Comment Proposed §2259 tracks AEDPA's §2264) follows: "As "unexhausted' concerned, [this section] represents articulated Rose Lundy, 509, 1198, 379 -[This bars consideration exceptions applicable. cannot return exhaust hand, [an exception] directed hearing exhausting Lundy requires. rules, futile great serves comity theory, results undermines finality convictions. prefer forward entails minor subordination expressed doctrine. Id., 22-23 Hughes Aircraft ex rel. Schumer, 1871, (1997), recently rejected jurisdiction-creating statutes, 1878, nothing disparaged

Category: 0