Johnson v. Williams

Docket No. Op. Below Argument Opinion Vote Author Term
11-465 9th Cir. Oct 3, 2012
Tr.Aud.
Feb 20, 2013 9-0 Alito OT 2012
 
Share:

Holding: For purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d), when a state court rules against a defendant in an opinion that rejects some of the defendant’s claims but does not expressly address a federal claim, a federal habeas court must presume, subject to rebuttal, that the federal claim was adjudicated on the merits.

Plain English Summary:

Judgment: Reversed and remanded, 9-0, in an opinion by Justice Alito on February 20, 2013. Justice Scalia filled an opinion concurring in the judgment.

SCOTUSblog Coverage

Briefs and Documents

Holding: For purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d), when a state court rules against a defendant in an opinion that rejects some of the defendant’s claims but does not expressly address a federal claim, a federal habeas court must presume, subject to rebuttal, that the federal claim was adjudicated on the merits.   JudgmentReversed and remanded, 9-0, in an opinion by Justice Alito on February 20, 2013. Justice Scalia filled an opinion concurring in the judgment.
Term Snapshot
Awards