Court Opinion

ID: 9429225
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-02 23:26:04.559857+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:23:17.980745
License: Public Domain

Justice Brennan,
with whom Justice Stevens joins,
dissenting.
I agree with Justice White and Justice Marshall that § 2254(d) does not apply to questions of competency. I also agree with Justice Marshall that it is entirely inappropriate to dispose of this case on nothing more than the necessarily limited briefing filed by the parties to date. I do not agree, however, with Justice Marshall’s suggestion that we might decide the case with further briefing but not oral argument. Accepting the majority’s premise that this case merits this Court’s attention at all, I would grant the petition for certiorari and set the case for argument.