This educational guide is based on the linked primary sources. It is not a Court publication, is not affiliated with the Court, and is not legal advice.
In brief
Overview
According to Gen. Hardy Myers (Petitioner), the case concerns whether a state prisoner must first present a federal constitutional claim to state courts to satisfy the exhaustion requirement for federal habeas review.
Oregon law requires appellate decisions to clearly state whether a state or federal question was presented.
The record shows that the papers submitted to the appellate court did not indicate a federal question was raised.
Background and question before the Court
According to Gen. Hardy Myers (Petitioner), when a state prisoner attacks his conviction on a federal constitutional claim, he must first alert the state courts of that claim to satisfy the exhaustion rule for federal habeas purposes.
According to MR. MYERS, the fair‑presentation issue also requires the petitioner to adequately identify the substance of the claim and the legal theory, even when the federal source of the claim is identified.
What each side argues
Petitioner (George H. Baldwin)
According to Gen. Hardy Myers (Petitioner), a state prisoner must first alert state courts when raising a federal constitutional claim to satisfy the exhaustion requirement for federal habeas review.
According to MR. MYERS, even if the federal source of the claim is identified, the fair‑presentation issue still requires adequately identifying the substance of the claim and the legal theory.
Respondent (Michael Reese)
According to Mr. Balske, the case presents a narrow question of fair presentation, and the courts should not need to conduct extensive searches to determine whether the claim was fairly presented.
According to Mr. Balske, i do not defend the Ninth Circuit’s test; I only defend the judgment.
What happened at oral argument
According to Justice, qUESTION: How would you characterize the Ninth Circuit rule?
According to Justice, qUESTION: How about if you cite at least a reported case that has decided the claim on a Federal basis?
According to Justice, qUESTION: Don't you think it's likely that Federal judges sitting in the state would be aware of those changes?
According to Justice, qUESTION: But we get thousands of cases around here that just says Fifth Amendment, ineffective assistance of counsel. That gives us very, very little help.
According to CHIEF JUSTICE REHNQUIST, qUESTION: If you prevail, I hope you're not unhappy with what you get, because you're going to have petitions in which there's a huge laundry list of cases.
What the Court decided
Why it matters
Terms to know
No glossary terms are available for this guide.
Primary sources
Read the source materials on the official site or open the immutable repository copy used for this guide.
- fbca9db20be8b0b9b428-r1-9fb568e8dd21498d.pdforal argument transcript
Guide generated September 20, 2026. Automated validation accepted this version.