October Term 2002 · Docket 01-1862
Does AEDPA apply to pending habeas cases?
The dispute centers on whether new federal habeas rules apply to cases filed before enactment.
Verified source milestones
- — An official oral-argument transcript was verified.
The arguments, in order
This case may have been argued more than once. Each entry below uses that session's official transcript. Later arguments do not erase earlier ones.
Argument 1 ·
What happened at the argument
Ms. McLean argued the filing date controls applicability.
Ms. Coffin argued precedent bars applying the rules to pending cases.
The Chief Justice closed the argument.
Read the official transcript for this argument · Official argument details
Sources used for this argument breakdown
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 15, lines 13-13 — Transcript, file page 15, lines 13-13
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 17-27 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 17-27
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 5-15 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 5-15
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 49, lines 45-47 — Transcript, file page 49, lines 45-47
A citizen's guide to the whole case
What this case is about
The case tests the retroactive reach of AEDPA amendments.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 15, lines 13-13 — Transcript, file page 15, lines 13-13
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 17-27 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 17-27
How the case got here
The Supreme Court heard oral argument in this case on January 21, 2003.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 5-15 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 5-15
What each side wants
the side that brought the case wants the new rules to apply to pending cases.
the opposing side wants the new rules to exclude pending cases.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 15, lines 13-13 — Transcript, file page 15, lines 13-13
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 17-27 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 17-27
What each side says
the side that brought the case argues the filing date determines applicability.
the opposing side argues precedent bars applying the rules to pending cases.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 15, lines 13-13 — Transcript, file page 15, lines 13-13
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 17-27 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 17-27
What the justices asked
The Chief Justice asked if the case was submitted.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 49, lines 45-47 — Transcript, file page 49, lines 45-47
Why it matters
This case defines the scope of federal habeas review for pending petitions.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 15, lines 13-13 — Transcript, file page 15, lines 13-13
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 17-27 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 17-27
What happens next
This article currently covers the argument record. Use the official docket link for later case activity.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 5-15 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 5-15
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 49, lines 45-47 — Transcript, file page 49, lines 45-47
Official Court provenance
Official docket and case history · Official Supreme Court oral-argument detail page
Title and summary sources
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 15, lines 13-13 — Transcript, file page 15, lines 13-13
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 17-27 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 17-27
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 15, lines 13-13 — Transcript, file page 15, lines 13-13
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 17-27 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 17-27
Revision history
- Revision 1 · Official Transcript ·
Correction: Rewritten to the concise citizen-facing editorial standard.
- Revision 2 · Official Transcript ·
Correction: Migrated to the dated official Court activity contract without model use.