October Term 2017 · Docket 16-6855
Should federal courts review the last reasoned state court decision in habeas cases?
the sides that brought the case want federal courts to review the last reasoned state decision. the opposing sides want courts to apply the standard to the final summary order.
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. Olive argued federal courts should look through summary orders.
Ms. Warren argued the standard applies to the last merits decision.
questions_asked_by_justices
Read the official transcript for this argument · Official argument details
Sources used for this argument breakdown
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 31, lines 11-33 — Transcript, file page 31, lines 11-33
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 11-21 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 11-21
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 23-15 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 23-15
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 17-31 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 17-31
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 45-47 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 45-47
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 15-23 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 15-23
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 55-15 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 55-15
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 9-9 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 9-9
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 27-33 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 27-33
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 45-47 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 45-47
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 53-27 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 53-27
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 31-37 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 31-37
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 41-43 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 41-43
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 49-51 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 49-51
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 55-9 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 55-9
A citizen's guide to the whole case
What this case is about
This case concerns federal habeas corpus review. The dispute centers on which state court decision federal courts must evaluate. the sides that brought the case argue for looking through summary orders. the opposing sides argue for applying the standard to the final order.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 31, lines 11-33 — Transcript, file page 31, lines 11-33
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 23-15 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 23-15
How the case got here
The Supreme Court heard oral argument in this case on October 30, 2017.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 11-21 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 11-21
What each side wants
the sides that brought the case want federal courts to review the last reasoned state court decision.
the opposing sides want federal courts to apply the standard to the final summary order.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 31, lines 11-33 — Transcript, file page 31, lines 11-33
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 23-15 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 23-15
What each side says
the sides that brought the case argue federal courts should look through summary orders to the last reasoned decision.
the opposing sides argue the standard applies to the last state court merits decision, even if summary.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 31, lines 11-33 — Transcript, file page 31, lines 11-33
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 23-15 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 23-15
What the justices asked
Chief Justice Roberts asked for clarification on the correct legal standard.
Justice Alito questioned whether summary affirmance adopts lower court reasoning generally.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 17-31 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 17-31
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 45-47 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 45-47
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 15-23 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 15-23
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 55-15 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 55-15
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 9-9 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 9-9
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 27-33 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 27-33
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 45-47 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 45-47
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 53-27 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 53-27
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 31-37 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 31-37
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 41-43 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 41-43
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 49-51 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 49-51
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 55-9 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 55-9
Why it matters
This dispute determines how federal courts evaluate state habeas claims. It affects the scope of federal review for state prisoners. It clarifies the relationship between summary and reasoned state decisions.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 31, lines 11-33 — Transcript, file page 31, lines 11-33
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 23-15 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 23-15
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 4, lines 11-21 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 11-21
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 17-31 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 17-31
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 45-47 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 45-47
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 15-23 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 15-23
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 55-15 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 55-15
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 9-9 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 9-9
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 27-33 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 27-33
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 45-47 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 45-47
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 53-27 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 53-27
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 31-37 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 31-37
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 41-43 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 41-43
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 49-51 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 49-51
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 55-9 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 55-9
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 31, lines 11-33 — Transcript, file page 31, lines 11-33
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 23-15 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 23-15
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 31, lines 11-33 — Transcript, file page 31, lines 11-33
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 23-15 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 23-15
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.