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
The petitioner's attorney was Benjamin J. Butler, and the respondent's attorney was Patrick C. Diamond.
Background and question before the Court
According to Benjamin J. Butler, petitioner argues that the Minnesota Supreme Court incorrectly held that this Court prevented it from deciding which state prisoners may bring federal constitutional challenges in Minnesota courts.
According to Benjamin J. Butler, petitioner also contends that the Teague Court imposed procedural and prudential limits on a defense available to the State in habeas corpus.
According to Benjamin J. Butler, petitioner references the Hudson case concerning Fourth Amendment no‑knock violations.
According to Justice Souter, justice Souter inquired about the finality point and its effect on uniform application of a rule across states.
According to Justice Kennedy, justice Kennedy expressed serious problems with the petitioner's position.
Justice Breyer asked whether the issue is a matter of federal law.
Justice Stevens asked whether the Teague rule originates from the Court's power to create federal common law or from a constitutional mandate.
- [1] f8bc21af391e674c1840-r1-c76faf93c4d835c3.pdf, p. 3
- [2] f8bc21af391e674c1840-r1-c76faf93c4d835c3.pdf, p. 6
- [3] f8bc21af391e674c1840-r1-c76faf93c4d835c3.pdf, p. 13
- [4] f8bc21af391e674c1840-r1-c76faf93c4d835c3.pdf, p. 33
- [5] f8bc21af391e674c1840-r1-c76faf93c4d835c3.pdf, p. 38
- [6] f8bc21af391e674c1840-r1-c76faf93c4d835c3.pdf, p. 38
- [7] f8bc21af391e674c1840-r1-c76faf93c4d835c3.pdf, pp. 47–48
What each side argues
Petitioner (Stephen Danforth)
According to Benjamin J. Butler, petitioner argues that the Minnesota Supreme Court incorrectly held that this Court prevented it from deciding which state prisoners may bring federal constitutional challenges in Minnesota courts.
According to Benjamin J. Butler, petitioner contends that the Teague Court imposed procedural and prudential limits on a defense available to the State in habeas corpus.
According to Benjamin J. Butler, petitioner references the Hudson case concerning Fourth Amendment no‑knock violations.
Respondent (State of Minnesota)
The State argues that when there is a violation of the Sixth Amendment confrontation clause, the Court decides the required remedies.
According to Mr. Diamond, respondent contends that adopting the Minnesota case Krasky as a state standard would place the Court outside its review authority.
What happened at oral argument
Oral argument began at 10:01 a.m. before the Supreme Court.
Appearances were made by Benjamin J. Butler for the petitioner and Patrick C. Diamond for the respondent.
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.
- f8bc21af391e674c1840-r1-c76faf93c4d835c3.pdforal argument transcript
Guide generated September 22, 2026. Automated validation accepted this version.