lindh
murphy
warden
argued
april
decided
june
held
since
new
provisions
chapter
generally
apply
cases
filed
act
became
effective
apply
pending
noncapital
cases
lindh
pp
wisconsin
errs
arguing
whenever
new
statute
face
apply
litigation
events
preceding
enactment
two
alternative
sources
rules
determine
ultimatetemporal
reach
either
congress
express
command
application
landgraf
default
rule
governing
retroactivity
normal
rules
construction
apply
determining
statute
temporal
reach
generally
whether
statute
terms
produce
retroactive
effect
although
landgraf
rule
deny
application
retroactive
effect
otherwise
result
construction
rules
may
apply
remove
even
possibility
retroactivity
rendering
statutory
provision
wholly
inapplicable
particular
case
lindh
argues
recognition
negative
implication
pp
statute
reveals
congress
general
intent
apply
chapter
amendments
cases
filed
enactment
act
revised
chapter
habeas
proceedings
act
created
entirely
new
chapter
habeas
proceedings
capital
cases
special
rules
favorable
meet
certain
conditions
section
expressly
applies
chapter
pending
cases
negative
implication
chapter
amendments
meant
apply
cases
filed
enactment
congress
reasonably
concerned
ensure
chapter
applied
pending
cases
different
intent
explains
fact
enact
similar
provision
chapter
chapters
evolved
separately
joined
together
last
minute
chapter
acquired
mandate
might
possibility
congress
intended
rule
chapter
careless
rough
tumble
circumstances
added
chapters
introduced
single
bill
section
insertion
thus
illustrates
familiar
rule
negative
implications
raised
disparate
provisions
strongest
portions
statute
treated
differently
already
joined
together
considered
simultaneously
language
raising
implication
inserted
see
field
mans
respondent
one
competing
explanation
intended
fix
ambiguity
state
qualify
chapter
favorable
rules
remote
displace
straightforward
inference
chapter
meant
apply
pending
cases
finally
new
enacted
within
chapter
provides
new
chapter
apply
pending
chapter
cases
speak
present
issue
flawless
clarity
tends
confirm
interpretation
adopted
shows
congress
assumed
absence
new
apply
pending
cases
pp
reversed
remanded
souter
delivered
opinion
stevens
ginsburg
breyer
joined
rehnquist
filed
dissenting
opinion
scalia
kennedy
thomas
joined
notice
opinion
subject
formal
revision
publication
preliminary
print
reports
readers
requested
notify
reporter
decisions
wash
ington
typographical
formal
errors
order
corrections
may
made
preliminary
print
goes
press
aaron
lindh
petitioner
james
murphy
warden
writ
certiorari
appeals
seventh
circuit
june
justice
souter
delivered
opinion
antiterrorism
effective
death
penalty
act
stat
signed
law
april
enacted
present
supp
issue
case
whether
new
section
statute
dealing
petitions
habeas
corpus
governs
applications
noncapital
cases
already
pending
act
passed
hold
wisconsin
tried
aaron
lindh
multiple
charges
murder
attempted
murder
response
insanity
defense
state
called
psychiatrist
spoken
lindh
immediately
killings
later
lindh
trial
come
criminal
investigation
state
sexual
exploitation
patients
although
trial
lindh
tried
ask
psychiatrist
investigation
hoping
suggest
witness
interest
currying
favor
state
trial
barred
questioning
lindh
convicted
direct
appeal
lindh
claimed
violation
confrontation
clause
national
constitution
despite
denial
relief
lindh
sought
neither
reviewin
state
collateral
review
instead
july
filed
habeas
corpus
application
district
argued
confrontation
clause
claim
relief
denied
october
lindh
promptly
appealed
seventh
circuit
shortly
oral
argument
however
federal
habeas
statute
amended
seventh
circuit
ordered
lindh
case
reheard
en
banc
see
whether
new
statute
applied
lindh
case
treated
appeals
held
act
amendments
chapter
title
generally
apply
cases
pending
date
enactment
since
read
statute
answering
questions
whether
newly
amended
version
apply
pending
applications
like
lindh
turned
recent
decision
landgraf
usi
film
products
landgraf
held
statute
clearly
mandate
application
retroactive
effect
determine
whether
applying
terms
ostensibly
indicated
genuinely
retroactive
effect
judicial
presumption
retroactivity
bar
application
seventh
circuit
concluded
applying
new
cases
already
pending
genuinely
retroactive
effect
attach
new
legal
consequences
events
preceding
enactment
held
statute
applicable
lindh
case
citing
landgraf
supra
authority
new
statute
denied
relief
merits
seventh
circuit
decision
new
version
applies
pending
chapter
cases
conflicts
holdings
edens
hannigan
boria
keane
per
curiam
accord
theseventh
circuit
case
hunter
en
banc
relying
lindh
hold
certain
amendments
chapter
applicable
pending
cases
granted
certiorari
limited
question
whether
new
applies
lindh
case
reverse
getting
statute
address
wisconsin
argument
whenever
new
statute
face
apply
litigation
events
occurred
enacted
two
alternative
sources
rules
determine
ultimate
temporal
reach
either
express
command
congress
application
landgraf
default
rule
landgraf
said
hen
case
implicates
federal
statute
enacted
events
suit
first
task
determine
whether
congress
expressly
prescribed
statute
proper
reach
congress
done
course
need
resort
judicial
default
rules
however
statute
contains
express
command
must
determine
whether
new
statute
retroactive
effect
statute
operate
retroactively
traditional
presumption
teaches
govern
absent
clear
congressional
intent
favoring
result
landgraf
supra
wisconsin
reading
however
ignores
context
language
quoted
disposed
question
whether
practice
applying
law
stands
time
decision
represented
retreat
occasionally
conflicting
position
retroactivity
application
new
statutes
disfavored
answer
given
presumption
retroactivity
reaffirmed
traditional
rule
requiring
retroactive
application
supported
clear
statement
landgraf
thus
referred
express
command
unambiguous
directive
like
sought
reaffirm
clear
statement
rule
see
landgraf
usi
film
products
supra
unambiguous
directive
necesssary
authorize
retroactive
application
statutes
construed
retroactive
effect
unless
language
requires
result
internal
quotation
marks
citation
omitted
requiring
clear
intent
assures
congress
affirmatively
considered
potential
unfairness
retroactive
application
finding
clear
evidence
congressional
intent
rebut
presumption
statutory
retroactivity
scalia
concurring
judgment
agreeing
legislative
enactment
affecting
substantive
rights
apply
retroactively
absent
clear
statement
contrary
determining
whether
statute
terms
produce
retroactive
effect
however
determining
statute
temporal
reach
generally
normal
rules
construction
apply
although
landgraf
default
rule
deny
application
retroactive
effect
otherwise
result
construction
rules
may
apply
remove
even
possibility
retroactivity
rendering
statutory
provision
wholly
inapplicable
particular
case
lindh
argues
recognition
negative
implication
sum
theapplication
term
retroactive
lindh
term
applied
even
absence
retroactive
effect
might
find
term
applicable
prospective
particular
degree
prospectivity
intended
act
identified
normal
course
order
determine
whether
term
apply
lindh
statute
reveals
congress
intent
apply
amendments
chapter
cases
filed
statute
enactment
except
chapter
otherwise
makes
select
provisions
chapter
applicable
pending
cases
title
act
stands
less
independent
act
titles
providing
revision
federal
habeas
practice
two
main
things
first
amends
chapter
title
code
governing
habeas
corpus
proceedings
federal
courts
stat
habeas
proceedings
state
capital
cases
creates
entirely
new
chapter
special
rules
favorable
state
party
applicable
state
meets
certain
conditions
including
provision
appointment
postconviction
counsel
state
proceedings
stat
act
provides
chapter
shall
apply
casespending
date
enactment
act
stat
read
provision
expressly
applying
chapter
cases
pending
enactment
indicating
implicitly
amendments
chapter
assumed
meant
apply
general
run
habeas
cases
cases
filed
date
act
significance
provision
application
pending
cases
becomes
apparent
one
realizes
chapter
applicable
substantive
well
purely
procedural
effects
chapter
merely
procedural
strict
sense
say
setting
deadlines
filing
disposition
see
supp
stat
natural
expectation
apply
pending
cases
landgraf
noting
procedural
changes
may
often
applied
suits
arising
enactment
without
raising
concerns
retroactivity
chapter
revisions
prior
law
change
standards
proof
persuasion
way
favorable
state
statute
goes
beyond
mere
procedure
affect
substantive
entitlement
relief
see
supp
stat
incorporating
revised
legal
standard
new
landgraf
speak
rules
determining
temporal
reach
statute
need
statute
might
true
retroactive
effect
neither
clearly
procedural
fall
within
express
albeit
qualified
approval
applying
statutes
pending
cases
since
landgraf
latest
word
subject
act
passed
congress
taken
opinion
cautious
statement
procedural
statutes
silence
kind
provision
exemplified
new
counseling
wisdom
explicit
wanted
provision
applied
casesalready
pending
terms
may
amount
clear
statement
required
mandate
apply
statute
disfavored
retroactive
way
serve
make
clear
general
matter
chapter
applies
pending
cases
terms
fit
cases
particular
procedural
points
reached
course
may
well
difficult
issues
may
application
landgraf
default
rule
necessary
settle
next
point
significant
purposes
everything
observed
chapter
true
changes
made
chapter
already
noted
amended
chapter
applicable
chapter
cases
governs
standards
affecting
entitlement
relief
congress
reasonably
concerned
ensure
chapter
applied
pending
cases
concerned
chapter
unless
different
intent
latter
chapter
applied
general
run
pending
cases
nothing
indeed
different
intent
explains
different
treatment
might
example
two
chapters
evolved
separately
congressional
process
passed
together
last
minute
chapter
already
acquired
mandate
apply
pending
cases
circumstances
might
real
possibility
congress
intended
rule
application
chapter
rough
tumble
one
thought
careful
chapter
whereas
someone
else
happened
think
ofinserting
provision
chapter
circumstances
although
chapters
may
begun
life
independently
different
houses
congress
joined
together
introduced
single
bill
senate
added
chapters
therefore
mind
added
anything
chapter
prior
addition
made
intent
apply
pending
cases
less
likely
similar
intent
apply
chapter
anything
contrary
true
discussion
indicate
insertion
different
treatments
two
chapters
thus
illustrates
familiar
rule
negative
implications
raised
disparate
provisions
strongest
portions
statute
treated
differently
already
joined
together
considered
simultaneously
language
raising
implication
inserted
see
field
mans
slip
apparently
deliberate
contrast
stronger
inference
applied
example
contrasting
statutory
sections
originally
enacted
simultaneously
relevant
respects
added
thoughtful
member
congress
likely
intended
later
reader
sees
inference
strength
implication
diminished
bythe
one
competing
explanation
suggested
see
brief
respondent
goes
follows
chapter
provides
expedited
filing
adjudication
habeas
applications
capital
cases
state
met
certain
conditions
general
terms
applications
expedited
state
benefit
state
made
adequate
provision
counsel
represent
indigent
habeas
applicants
state
expense
thus
provides
chapter
applicable
state
establishes
mechanism
appointment
compensation
payment
reasonable
litigation
expenses
competent
counsel
state
proceedings
brought
indigent
prisoners
stat
ambiguity
provision
quoted
argument
runs
applies
chapter
capital
cases
state
establishes
mechanism
leaving
question
whether
chapter
apply
state
already
established
mechanism
chapter
passed
idea
present
tense
word
establishes
might
read
rule
state
already
established
mechanism
suggesting
added
provide
chapter
apply
cases
pending
meant
eliminate
ambiguity
showing
pending
cases
treated
alike
explanation
significance
however
plausible
first
one
strain
find
ambiguity
alternative
explanation
supposed
rest
congress
intent
expediting
capital
habeas
cases
wanted
disfavor
state
already
done
part
promote
sound
resolution
prisoners
petitions
way
congress
sought
encourage
make
sense
leave
slower
track
seems
unlikely
federal
courts
interpreted
second
anyone
seen
ambiguity
lurking
dispatched
far
simpler
andstraightforward
fashion
enacting
drafter
needed
insert
three
words
make
refer
state
establishes
established
mechanism
simply
plausible
anyone
sensitive
find
unlikely
ambiguity
delphic
choose
fix
indeed
ambiguity
hypothesis
least
uncertain
language
supposed
clarify
since
cases
pending
read
refer
cases
pending
set
mechanisms
effective
date
act
hypothesis
fixing
ambiguity
remote
displace
straightforward
inference
chapter
meant
apply
pending
cases
finally
speak
significance
new
lindh
cites
confirming
reading
act
speak
present
issue
flawless
clarity
agree
lindh
tends
confirm
interpretation
adopt
section
part
new
chapter
provides
ollowing
review
subject
subsections
rule
claims
subject
expedited
consideration
stat
said
part
chapter
applying
habeas
cases
generally
including
cases
chapter
subsection
existed
act
simply
providing
habeas
remedy
held
violation
federal
law
although
previously
subsections
lettered
dealing
presumption
correctness
accorded
state
factual
findings
production
state
records
evidentiary
sufficiency
challenged
respectively
act
eliminated
old
relettered
old
place
old
inserted
new
followed
new
two
dealing
among
things
adequacy
state
factual
determinations
bearing
right
tofederal
relief
presumption
correctness
given
state
determinations
stat
new
provisions
refers
provides
chapter
determinations
shall
made
subject
leaving
aside
reference
moment
congress
provided
specifically
chapter
determinations
shall
made
subject
given
fact
latter
part
chapter
thus
independently
apply
habeas
generally
one
argument
answer
lies
expedited
capital
cases
specially
provides
exhaustion
requirement
subject
three
exceptions
restricting
federal
habeas
claims
raised
decided
merits
state
courts
stat
see
argument
assumes
assume
sake
argument
expedited
capital
cases
provision
supersedes
requirements
exhaustion
state
remedies
imposed
general
matter
argumentthen
goes
explicit
applying
capital
cases
order
avoid
suggestion
congress
enacted
supersede
exhaustion
congress
also
meant
displace
neighboring
provisions
dealing
things
status
state
factual
determinations
find
unlikely
first
find
hard
imagine
anyone
read
superseding
exhaustion
rule
address
applicability
exhaustion
requirement
provisions
effect
state
factual
determinations
anyone
read
special
provision
exhaustion
capital
cases
supersede
general
exhaustion
provisions
evidentiary
status
presumption
provisions
well
assume
congress
reasonably
meant
leave
law
expedited
capital
cases
favorable
fulfill
conditions
without
presumption
correctness
relevant
state
factualdeterminations
think
reasonable
reading
thus
reading
congress
feared
addressed
therefore
find
different
function
express
requirement
chapter
determinations
made
accordance
continuing
state
assumption
replaces
rather
complements
exhaustion
provisions
see
function
providing
applicable
chapter
cases
fact
supportive
negative
implication
apparent
need
provide
expressly
apply
temporal
reach
entirely
new
provisions
chapter
new
provisions
chapters
potentially
applicable
cases
pending
act
took
effect
well
filed
later
special
provision
applying
cases
chapter
utility
must
might
apply
chapter
cases
since
chapter
new
sections
chapter
unquestionably
apply
alike
cases
filed
act
took
effect
cases
chapter
apply
without
express
provision
must
cases
already
pending
act
took
effect
utility
therefore
providing
pending
case
also
expedited
capital
case
subject
chapter
new
provisions
apply
case
provision
thus
confirms
congress
assumed
absence
provision
new
parts
chapter
apply
pending
federal
habeas
cases
analysis
consistent
turn
congress
failure
make
express
provision
applying
subsections
deal
producing
state
evidentiary
records
admissibility
evidence
congress
obviously
wanted
provisions
apply
chapter
pending
cases
old
provisions
already
attached
pending
capital
habeas
cases
letter
designations
amended
congress
need
make
special
provision
application
pending
capital
habeas
cases
might
immediately
later
turn
covered
chapter
subsections
however
new
congress
wanted
apply
chapter
cases
start
hypotheses
make
special
provision
made
subsections
reasons
congress
need
made
special
provisions
subsections
apply
pending
chapter
cases
subsections
deal
respectively
appointment
counsel
indigent
federal
proceeding
irrelevance
habeas
relief
adequacy
counsel
performance
previous
proceedings
see
stat
need
make
subsection
immediately
available
pending
cases
capital
already
authorized
appointment
counsel
cases
reason
make
subsection
immediately
available
state
benefit
expedited
capital
cases
chapter
already
dealt
matter
see
stat
therefore
good
fit
references
inference
amendments
chapter
meant
apply
subsequently
filed
cases
good
reason
apply
new
chapter
provision
litigation
chapter
case
pending
act
took
effect
made
applicable
reason
thing
one
loose
end
section
anold
provision
without
peculiar
relevance
chapter
cases
applicable
without
need
special
provision
old
provision
like
lettered
subsections
make
express
provision
applying
chapter
cases
answer
leaps
us
say
world
silk
purses
pigs
ears
act
silk
purse
art
statutory
drafting
upshot
analysis
accords
coherence
rival
examined
enough
hold
negative
implication
new
provisions
chapter
generally
apply
cases
filed
act
became
effective
lindh
case
one
reverse
judgment
appeals
remand
case
proceedings
consistent
opinion
ordered
aaron
lindh
petitioner
james
murphy
warden
writ
certiorari
appeals
seventh
circuit
june
chief
justice
rehnquist
justice
scalia
justice
kennedy
justice
thomas
join
dissenting
case
conducts
truncated
inquiry
question
congressional
intent
believe
reaches
wrong
result
begins
uncontroversially
enough
observing
application
antiterrorism
effective
death
penalty
act
aedpa
pending
cases
depends
upon
congressional
intent
inquiry
intent
rely
upon
normal
rules
statutory
construction
ante
proceeds
however
disregard
retroactivity
case
law
rather
oddly
disparages
manifestations
landgraf
default
rule
favor
permissible
means
controlling
negative
inference
draws
statutory
text
instead
interpret
aedpa
light
whole
longstanding
retroactivity
jurisprudence
accordingly
find
amended
supp
applies
pending
cases
first
question
must
ask
whether
congress
expressly
resolved
whether
provision
question
applies
pending
cases
landgraf
usi
film
products
answer
isplainly
aedpa
clearly
state
one
way
whether
chapter
applies
pending
cases
given
congressional
silence
must
still
interpret
statute
interpretation
turn
guided
retroactivity
principles
developed
years
relies
one
canon
statutory
interpretation
expressio
unius
est
exclusio
alterius
exclusion
others
opinion
rests
almost
entirely
negative
inference
drawn
fact
congress
expressly
made
chapter
pertaining
capital
cases
applicable
pending
cases
make
express
provision
regards
chapter
inference
however
means
necessary
even
clearly
best
inference
possible
certainly
congress
might
intended
omission
signal
intent
chapter
apply
pending
cases
equally
plausible
alternatives
first
chapter
applicability
conditioned
upon
antecedent
events
namely
state
establishing
qualifying
capital
habeas
representation
procedures
congress
perceived
greater
likelihood
absent
express
provision
otherwise
courts
fail
apply
chapter
provisions
pending
capital
cases
second
characteristically
extended
pendency
collateral
attacks
capital
convictions
congress
concern
perceived
acquiescence
capital
defendants
dilatory
tactics
federal
courts
evidenced
chapter
strict
time
limits
adjudication
capital
cases
indeed
title
statute
antiterrorism
effective
death
penalty
act
congress
well
desired
speak
exacting
clarity
applicability
aedpa
pending
capital
cases
third
congress
intending
aedpa
definitely
apply
pending
capital
cases
uncertain
disagreement
many
portions
chapter
apply
pending
cases
congress
simply
assumed
courts
sort
questions
using
ordinary
retroactivity
presumptions
none
competing
inferences
clearly
superior
others
rejects
first
ante
implausible
solution
unlikely
ambiguity
solution
nearly
implausible
contention
order
show
wished
chapter
apply
pending
cases
congress
chose
make
chapter
expressly
applicable
cases
congress
wanted
make
chapter
inapplicable
pending
cases
simplest
way
say
congress
instead
concerned
courts
interpret
chapter
contingent
nature
applying
pending
cases
direct
way
solve
concern
solution
adopted
expressly
stating
chapter
indeed
apply
pending
cases
finds
additional
support
inference
new
supp
believes
tends
confirm
ante
analysis
section
part
chapter
forbids
subject
narrow
exceptions
federal
district
courts
considering
claims
raised
state
capital
defendants
unless
claims
first
raised
decided
merits
state
section
provides
ollowing
review
subject
subsections
section
contained
within
chapter
shall
rule
claims
properly
thissection
believe
irrelevant
question
us
somewhat
tortured
interpretation
section
backhanded
way
making
rest
chapter
apply
pending
cases
convincing
one
thing
phrased
timing
provision
rather
containing
temporal
language
applying
select
sections
pending
cases
speaks
present
tense
review
conducted
chapter
even
tellingly
implicitly
concedes
blandly
describes
provision
loose
end
ante
aedpa
alter
need
express
provision
making
applicable
pending
cases
chapter
establishes
special
procedures
capital
prisoners
section
terms
makes
clear
apply
chapter
proceedings
clarification
makes
sense
light
replaces
exhaustion
requirement
requirement
federal
courts
consider
subject
narrow
exceptions
claims
raised
decided
merits
state
courts
without
clarification
doubt
might
exist
whether
rest
still
applied
capital
proceedings
petitioner
protests
read
supplanting
produce
outlandish
results
brief
petitioner
conclusion
finds
plausible
ante
although
ultimately
assumes
otherwise
result
outlandish
indeed
refuse
apply
language
chosen
congress
result
obtain
petitioner
fail
appreciate
different
litigating
incentives
facing
capital
noncapital
defendants
noncapital
defendants
serving
criminal
sentences
prison
file
habeas
petitions
seeking
released
presumably
soon
aspossible
incentive
delay
circumstances
quite
reasonably
require
habeas
claims
filed
first
state
courts
state
judicial
apparatus
may
first
opportunity
address
claims
contrast
capital
defendants
facing
impending
execution
seek
avoid
executed
incentive
therefore
utilize
every
means
possible
delay
carrying
sentence
therefore
outlandish
congress
concluded
circumstances
exhaustion
needlessly
prolong
capital
proceedings
requirement
claim
raised
decided
merits
state
sufficient
protection
interests
exhaustion
point
analysis
stops
based
weak
inference
congress
designation
chapter
applying
pending
cases
strained
reading
concludes
congress
impliedly
intended
chapter
apply
pending
cases
go
apply
ordinary
retroactivity
principles
congress
doubt
assumed
first
generally
applied
new
procedural
rules
pending
cases
landgraf
see
also
beazell
ohio
ex
parte
collett
dobbert
florida
collins
youngblood
rules
procedure
regulate
secondary
rather
primary
conduct
landgraf
primary
conduct
occurred
lindh
murdered
two
people
sheriff
office
city
county
building
madison
wisconsin
obviously
aedpa
way
purports
regulate
past
conduct
lindh
state
proceedings
constituted
secondary
conduct
retroactivity
precedents
state
proceedings
federal
applied
existing
procedural
law
even
though
lindh
primary
conduct
occurred
time
earlier
federal
habeas
proceeding
issue
sense
tertiary
conduct
actual
criminal
conduct
prohibited
law
proceeding
determine
whether
defendant
fact
committed
conduct
rather
collateral
proceeding
effect
attacks
judgment
prior
state
proceeding
section
precise
section
issue
simply
alters
standard
prior
judgment
evaluated
sense
entirely
procedural
cf
horning
district
columbia
applying
newly
enacted
harmless
error
statute
changed
standard
prior
judgments
evaluated
pending
case
second
usually
applied
changes
law
prospective
forms
relief
landgraf
supra
see
also
duplex
printing
press
deering
american
steel
foundries
tri
city
central
trades
council
hall
beals
kaiser
aluminum
chemical
bonjorno
scalia
concurring
unlike
damages
actions
quintessentially
backward
looking
landgraf
supra
writ
habeas
corpus
prospective
nature
habeas
compensate
past
wrongful
incarceration
punish
state
imposing
see
lane
williams
instead
habeas
challenge
unlawful
custody
writ
issues
prevents
illegal
custody
see
preiser
rodriguez
finally
regularly
applied
statutes
ousting
jurisdiction
pending
litigation
landgraf
supra
see
also
bruner
congress
altered
nature
validity
petitioner
rights
government
liability
simply
reduced
number
tribunals
authorized
hear
determine
rights
liabilities
hallowell
commons
sherman
grinnell
assessors
osbornes
wall
ex
parte
mccardle
wall
insurance
ritchie
wall
statutes
speak
power
rather
rights
obligations
parties
landgraf
supra
quoting
republicnat
bank
miami
thomas
concurring
see
also
scalia
concurring
judgment
jurisdiction
cases
explained
think
fact
purpose
provisions
conferring
eliminating
jurisdiction
permit
forbid
exercise
judicial
power
relevant
event
retroactivity
purposes
moment
power
sought
exercised
principle
relevant
case
hand
good
argument
jurisdictional
see
brown
allen
jurisdiction
applications
federal
habeas
corpus
controlled
statute
sumner
mata
present
codification
federal
habeas
statute
successor
first
congressional
grant
jurisdiction
federal
courts
amendments
embodied
codified
amended
aedpa
intended
congress
limitations
exercise
jurisdiction
quoting
preiser
rodriguez
cf
arkansas
farm
credit
servs
central
slip
explaining
tax
injunction
act
operative
language
similar
district
courts
shall
enjoin
first
foremost
vehicle
limit
drastically
federal
district
jurisdiction
interfere
important
local
concern
collection
taxes
internal
quotations
omitted
even
jurisdictional
shares
salient
characteristic
jurisdictional
statutes
commands
addressed
courts
rather
individuals
section
address
criminal
defendants
even
state
prosecutors
prescribes
proscribes
private
conduct
instead
addressed
directly
federal
courts
providing
application
writ
habeas
corpus
behalf
person
custody
pursuant
thejudgment
state
shall
granted
unless
emphasis
added
whether
approach
framed
terms
retroactive
effect
landgraf
majority
put
terms
relevant
activity
rule
regulates
justice
scalia
concurrence
put
see
scalia
concurring
judgment
longstanding
practice
applying
procedural
prospective
jurisdiction
ousting
statutes
pending
cases
must
play
important
part
decision
principles
favor
application
pending
cases
procedural
statute
regulating
prospective
relief
addressed
directly
federal
courts
removing
power
give
relief
specified
circumstances
cases
therefore
strongly
suggest
absent
congressional
direction
otherwise
apply
pending
cases
peculiar
characteristic
intrinsic
writ
habeas
corpus
rather
modifications
federal
courts
authority
issue
writ
necessarily
stripe
procedural
prospective
addressed
courts
therefore
surprising
parties
pointed
us
single
case
found
modification
scope
habeas
corpus
relief
inapplicable
pending
cases
contrary
respondent
amici
pointed
instead
uniform
body
cases
applying
changes
pending
cases
true
statutory
changes
scope
writ
see
gusik
schilder
applying
habeas
amendments
pending
claims
smith
yeager
applying
habeas
amendments
pending
claims
carafas
lavallee
felker
turpin
applying
different
section
aedpa
pending
case
judicial
changes
see
stone
powell
rejecting
petitioner
contention
change
law
apply
prospectively
sumner
mata
supra
applying
presumption
correctness
state
findings
fact
pending
case
wainwright
sykes
applying
cause
prejudice
doctrine
pending
case
brecht
abrahamson
applying
actual
prejudice
standard
pending
case
inquiry
incomplete
believe
reached
wrong
result
case
affirm
judgment
appeals
footnotes
titles
address
issues
restitution
victims
crime
title
ii
various
aspects
international
terrorism
titles
ii
iii
iv
vii
viii
restrictions
various
kinds
weapons
explosives
titles
vi
miscellaneous
items
title
ix
see
stat
section
also
amends
rule
federal
rules
appellate
procedure
stat
section
adds
technical
amendment
regarding
expert
investigative
fees
defense
stat
nordic
village
held
existence
plausible
alternative
interpretations
statutory
language
meant
language
qualify
unambiguous
expression
waiver
sovereign
immunity
cases
found
truly
retroactive
effect
adequately
authorized
statute
involved
statutory
language
clear
sustain
one
interpretation
see
graham
foster
goodcell
holding
statutory
provision
manifestly
intended
operate
retroactively
according
terms
tax
statute
spelled
meticulously
circumstances
defined
claims
applied
alternative
interpretation
absurd
automobile
club
commissioner
finding
clear
statement
authorizing
commissioner
internal
revenue
correct
tax
rulings
regulations
retroactively
statutory
authorization
commissioner
action
spoke
explicitly
terms
retroactivity
zacks
declining
give
retroactive
effect
new
substantive
tax
provision
reopening
claims
otherwise
barred
statute
limitations
observing
congress
provided
sort
retroactivity
substantive
provisions
explicitly
creating
new
grace
periods
otherwise
barred
claims
brought
new
substantive
law
cf
seminole
tribe
florida
slip
finding
clear
statement
congressional
abrogation
eleventh
amendment
immunity
federal
statute
went
beyond
granting
federal
jurisdiction
hear
claim
explicitly
contemplated
state
defendant
federal
numerous
provisions
act
landgraf
suggested
following
language
unenacted
precursor
statute
issue
case
might
possibly
qualified
clear
statement
retroactive
effect
act
shall
apply
proceedings
pending
commenced
date
enactment
act
landgraf
emphasis
added
internal
quotation
marks
omitted
even
language
qualify
use
sort
absolute
language
absent
distinguishes
cf
williams
finding
waiver
sovereign
expressed
language
granting
jurisdiction
courts
ny
civil
action
recovery
internal
revenue
tax
alleged
erroneously
illegally
assessed
collected
emphasis
williams
internal
quotation
marks
omitted
id
scalia
concurring
clear
statement
rule
require
explicit
waivers
given
meaning
implausible
see
ca
lindh
concedes
much
brief
petitioner
amendment
offered
senator
dole
may
added
see
cong
rec
may
comparison
stood
may
passed
senate
june
substitution
amendment
reveals
part
bill
dealing
habeas
corpus
reform
substantially
amendment
ways
relevant
interpretation
reasons
position
replaces
rather
complements
open
doubt
lindh
argues
force
read
replacing
exhaustion
requirement
mean
important
classes
cases
categories
three
exceptions
state
able
insist
exhaustion
state
courts
cases
raising
claims
newly
discovered
evidence
example
consequence
state
prevent
prisoner
going
directly
federal
evading
presumption
correctness
state
factual
findings
well
new
highly
deferential
standard
evaluating
state
rulings
true
state
might
perfectly
content
prisoner
choice
go
straight
federal
cases
state
free
waive
exhaustion
get
result
state
explained
congress
wanted
deprive
exhaustion
tools
chapter
cases
hard
pressed
come
areason
especially
considering
act
apparent
general
purpose
enhance
capacities
control
adjudications
appear
state
reading
also
eliminate
chapter
cases
provisions
define
exhaustion
requirement
explicitly
requiring
claim
raised
every
available
procedure
state
newly
authorize
federal
courts
deny
unexhausted
claims
merits
newly
require
state
waiver
exhaustion
shown
express
explanation
congress
wanted
deny
advantages
apparent
offered
parties
suggests
effects
intended
meant
supplement
rather
replacement
nevertheless
stated
text
assume
sake
argument
state
understanding
replacing
rather
complementing
chapter
exhaustion
requirements
chapter
correct
one
forceful
arguments
made
side
need
resolve
conflict
see
pet
habeas
corpus
mata
describing
took
nine
years
three
months
federal
district
deny
ninth
circuit
affirm
petitioner
first
federal
capital
habeas
petition
conclusion
also
consistent
conclusions
powell
committee
convened
address
problems
capital
habeas
cases
upon
whose
recommendations
chapter
substantially
based
see
judicial
conference
ad
hoc
committee
federal
habeas
corpus
capital
cases
committee
report
proposal
committee
comment
proposed
tracks
aedpa
explained
follows
far
new
unexhausted
claims
concerned
section
represents
change
exhaustion
doctrine
articulated
rose
lundy
section
bars
claims
consideration
unless
one
exceptions
applicable
prisoner
return
state
exhaust
even
like
hand
exception
applicable
district
directed
conduct
evidentiary
hearing
rule
new
claim
without
first
exhausting
state
remedies
rose
lundy
requires
existence
state
procedural
default
rules
exhaustion
futile
great
majority
cases
serves
state
interest
comity
theory
practice
results
delay
undermines
state
interest
finality
criminal
convictions
committee
believes
prefer
see
litigation
go
forward
capital
cases
even
entails
minor
subordination
interest
comity
expressed
exhaustion
doctrine
emphasis
added
although
hughes
aircraft
ex
rel
schumer
recently
rejected
presumption
favoring
retroactivity
jurisdiction
creating
statutes
see
slip
nothing
hughes
disparaged
longstanding
practice
applying
jurisdiction
ousting
statutes
pending
cases