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
Petitioner contends that the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (AEDPA) does not bar the Supreme Court from reviewing the constitutional issues presented.
The district court found that Panetti understands he committed the murders and that he will be executed.
Background and question before the Court
What each side argues
Petitioner Position
Petitioner argues that the AEDPA does not prevent this Court from addressing the merits of the constitutional issue here.
Respondent Position
According to Mr. Cruz (Respondent), respondent argues that AEDPA bars relief because the State court complied with clearly established law under Ford and because Panetti’s petition is a second or successive habeas application.
According to Mr. Cruz, respondent states that, in this case, Panetti satisfies the test required for relief.
What happened at oral argument
According to Chief Justice Roberts, chief Justice Roberts questioned whether Panetti understood why he was imprisoned and whether the Ford right extended to his situation.
Justice Souter asked whether the delusion today is the same as the delusion yesterday.
Justice Souter asked whether Congress was not addressing the problem of mental illness in criminal justice.
Justice Breyer asked whether the issue raised was constitutional.
Justice Kennedy asked a follow‑up question, “What about that one?”
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.
- 1cbeff164b0b7436df42-r1-889ed7a6fc8f92ef.pdforal argument transcript
Guide generated September 22, 2026. Automated validation accepted this version.