October Term 2010 · Docket 09-1088
Does federal law require courts to reweigh evidence when reviewing state habeas claims?
The dispute centers on whether federal judges must independently assess evidence or defer to state court findings in habeas cases.
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
Mr. Bilderback argued that federal habeas relief is unavailable unless the state court decision was unreasonable.
Justice Sotomayor questioned whether the defense attorney’s lack of preparation was the only new fact.
Justice Sotomayor asked if the attorney’s trial statement proved he did not expect a mitigation hearing.
Read the official transcript for this argument · Official argument details
Sources used for this argument breakdown
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 24, lines 51-39 — Transcript, file page 24, lines 51-39
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 17-1 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 17-1
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 7-15 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 7-15
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 17-25 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 17-25
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 3-13 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 3-13
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 31-33 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 31-33
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 39-41 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 39-41
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 49-1 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 49-1
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 15-21 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 15-21
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 15-29 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 15-29
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 45-5 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 45-5
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 39-39 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 39-39
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 11-17 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 11-17
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 21-29 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 21-29
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 9, lines 15-35 — Transcript, file page 9, lines 15-35
A citizen's guide to the whole case
What this case is about
This case tests the scope of federal habeas review. It asks if federal courts must reweigh evidence or accept state court conclusions.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 24, lines 51-39 — Transcript, file page 24, lines 51-39
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 17-1 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 17-1
How the case got here
The Supreme Court heard oral argument in this case on November 9, 2010.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 7-15 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 7-15
What each side wants
the side that brought the case wants federal courts to reweigh evidence and grant habeas relief.
the opposing side wants federal courts to defer to state court findings and deny relief.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 24, lines 51-39 — Transcript, file page 24, lines 51-39
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 17-1 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 17-1
What each side says
the side that brought the case argues federal law requires independent assessment of state court evidence.
the opposing side argues federal law mandates deference to state court factual findings.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 24, lines 51-39 — Transcript, file page 24, lines 51-39
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 17-1 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 17-1
What the justices asked
Justice Sotomayor asked if billing records were the only new underlying facts in the opinion.
Justice Sotomayor asked if counsel’s trial statement proved a lack of mitigation preparation.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 17-25 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 17-25
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 3-13 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 3-13
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 31-33 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 31-33
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 39-41 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 39-41
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 49-1 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 49-1
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 15-21 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 15-21
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 15-29 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 15-29
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 45-5 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 45-5
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 39-39 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 39-39
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 11-17 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 11-17
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 21-29 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 21-29
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 9, lines 15-35 — Transcript, file page 9, lines 15-35
Why it matters
This case defines the power of federal courts to review state criminal convictions. It determines how much weight federal judges give to state court evidence. The outcome shapes the balance between federal oversight and state judicial authority.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 24, lines 51-39 — Transcript, file page 24, lines 51-39
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 17-1 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 17-1
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 7-15 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 7-15
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 17-25 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 17-25
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 3-13 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 3-13
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 31-33 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 31-33
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 39-41 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 39-41
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 49-1 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 49-1
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 15-21 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 15-21
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 15-29 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 15-29
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 45-5 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 45-5
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 39-39 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 39-39
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 11-17 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 11-17
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 21-29 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 21-29
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 9, lines 15-35 — Transcript, file page 9, lines 15-35
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 24, lines 51-39 — Transcript, file page 24, lines 51-39
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 17-1 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 17-1
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 24, lines 51-39 — Transcript, file page 24, lines 51-39
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 17-1 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 17-1
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.