The Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (AEDPA), Pub.L. 104–132 (text)(PDF), 110 Stat. 1214, enacted April 24, 1996, was introduced to the United States Congress in April 1995 as a Senate Bill. The bill was presented by then-Senate Majority Leader Bob Dole and passed with broad bipartisan support by Congress following the 1993 World Trade Center bombing and the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing. It was signed into law by President Bill Clinton.
Day v. McDonough, 547 U.S. 198 (2006), is a US Supreme Court case involving the one-year statute of limitations for filing habeas corpus petitions that was established by the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (AEDPA). In a 5–4 decision, the Court ruled that if the government unintentionally failed to object to the filing of a petition after the AEDPA limitations period has expired, it is not an abuse of discretion for a district court to dismiss sua sponte the petition on that basis.
Lockyer v. Andrade, 538 U.S. 63 (2003), decided the same day as Ewing v. California, held that there would be no relief by means of a petition for a writ of habeas corpus from a sentence imposed under California's three strikes law as a violation of the Eighth Amendment's prohibition of cruel and unusual punishments. Relying on the reasoning of Ewing and Harmelin v. Michigan, the Court ruled that because no "clearly established" law held that a three-strikes sentence was cruel and unusual punishment, the 50-years-to-life sentence imposed in this case was not cruel and unusual punishment.
{{Infobox SCOTUS case
|Litigants=Carey v. Musladin |ArgueDate=October 11 |ArgueYear=2006 |DecideDate=December 11 |DecideYear=2006 |FullName=Thomas L. Carey, Warden v. Mathew Musladin |Docket=05-785 |USVol=549 |USPage=70 |ParallelCitations=127 S. Ct. 649; 166 L. Ed. 2d 482; 2006 U.S. LEXIS 9587; 75 U.S.L.W. 4019; 06 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 11,315; 20 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. S 23 |Prior=Defendant convicted, Santa Clara County Superior Court ; conviction upheld, sub nom., People v. Musladin, No. H015159 ; petition for writ of habeas corpus denied ; petition for writ of habeas corpus denied, No. CV-00-01998-JL ; rev'd sub nom., Musladin v. LaMarque, 403 F.3d 1072 ; rehearing denied, 427 F.3d 647 ; op. withdrawn and superseded, 427 F.3d 653 ; cert. granted, 547 U.S. 1069 (2006). |Subsequent= |Holding=State appellate court's determination that defendant was not deprived of his right to a fair trial when courtroom spectators wore buttons depicting murder victim was not "contrary to or unreasonable application of clearly established law." Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed. |Majority=Thomas |JoinMajority=Roberts, Scalia, Ginsburg, Breyer, Alito |Concurrence=Stevens |Concurrence2=Kennedy |Concurrence3=Souter |LawsApplied={{UnitedStatesCode|28|2254(d)(1)}Panetti v. Quarterman, 551 U.S. 930 (2007), is a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States, ruling that criminal defendants sentenced to death may not be executed if they do not understand the reason for their imminent execution, and that once the state has set an execution date death-row inmates may litigate their competency to be executed in habeas corpus proceedings. This decision reaffirmed the Court's prior holdings in Ford v. Wainwright, and Stewart v. Martinez-Villareal.
Boumediene v. Bush, 553 U.S. 723 (2008), was a writ of habeas corpus submission made in a civilian court of the United States on behalf of Lakhdar Boumediene, a naturalized citizen of Bosnia and Herzegovina, held in military detention by the United States at the Guantanamo Bay detention camps in Cuba. Guantánamo Bay is not formally part of the United States, and under the terms of the 1903 lease between the United States and Cuba, Cuba retained ultimate sovereignty over the territory, while the United States exercises complete jurisdiction and control. The case was consolidated with habeas petition Al Odah v. United States. It challenged the legality of Boumediene's detention at the United States Naval Station military base in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba as well as the constitutionality of the Military Commissions Act of 2006. Oral arguments on the combined cases were heard by the Supreme Court on December 5, 2007.
Immigration and Naturalization Service v. St. Cyr, 533 U.S. 289 (2001), is a United States Supreme Court case involving habeas corpus and INA § 212(c) relief for deportable aliens.
Rice v. Collins, 546 U.S. 333 (2006), was a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States regarding a prosecutor's use of a peremptory challenge to remove a young African American woman, Juror 16, from a defendant's drug trial jury in a California court case, based on her youth and on her alleged "eye rolling" in answer to a question. The defendant, Steven Martell Collins, challenged the striking of Juror 16, saying her exclusion was based on race, but the trial judge agreed that the prosecutor's reasons were race-neutral. The California Court of Appeal upheld the trial court's ruling, and the Federal District Court dismissed Collins' habeas corpus petition with prejudice. However, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed and remanded, stating that the dismissal was unreasonable based, among other reasons, on the lack of evidence that the eye rolling had occurred.
Stewart v. Martinez-Villareal, 523 U.S. 637 (1998), was a decision by the United States Supreme Court, which held that 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b) did not apply to a petition that raises only a competency to be executed claim and that respondent did not, therefore, need authorization to file his petition in the District Court.
Semtek v. Lockheed Martin, 531 U.S. 497 (2001), is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that the claim preclusive effect of a federal judgment on a claim over which subject matter jurisdiction is based solely on diversity is determined by the common law of the state in which the federal district court rendering the decision is located.
Jimenez v. Quarterman, 555 U.S. 113 (2009), was a decision in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1)(A), the conviction of a state defendant is not "final" if a state court grants an "out-of-time" appeal and the defendant has not yet filed a federal habeas petition.
Penry v. Johnson, 532 U.S. 782 (2001), is a United States Supreme Court case which concerned whether instructions given to a Texas jury were constitutionally adequate to emphasize the mitigating factors in sentencing of defendants who are intellectually disabled The Texas courts had determined the sentencing instructions were consistent with prior Supreme Court jurisprudence, but the Court in a divided decision reversed, finding the sentencing instructions insufficient. This was the second time Penry's case made it to the Supreme Court.
Premo v. Moore, 562 U.S. 115 (2011), is a United States Supreme Court case involving the right of individuals to federal habeas corpus relief on state-law claims. In a unanimous ruling, the court held that habeas relief may not be granted with respect to any claim a state-court has found on the merits unless the state-court decision denying relief involves an "unreasonable application" of "clearly established federal law, as determined by" the Court.
Greene v. Fisher, 565 U.S. 34 (2011), is a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States involving the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (AEDPA), which sets the standard of review for habeas corpus petitions brought in federal court to challenge state court convictions. AEDPA requires that to be set aside, the state court judgment must have been "contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal law as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States."
Smith v. Spisak, 558 U.S. 139 (2010), was a United States Supreme Court decision on the applicability of the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996. It further examined issues of previous court decisions on jury instructions and the effectiveness of counsel.
The Supreme Court of the United States handed down eight per curiam opinions during its 2014 term, which began October 6, 2014 and concluded October 4, 2015.
McQuiggin v. Perkins, 569 U.S. 383 (2013), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that actual innocence, if proven, is sufficient to circumvent the one-year statute of limitations for petitioners to appeal their conviction enacted within the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (AEDPA).
Wilson v. Sellers, 584 U.S. ___ (2018), is a United States Supreme Court case concerning whether a federal court sitting in a habeas corpus proceeding should "look through" a summary ruling to review the last reasoned decision by a state court.
Tyler v. Cain, 533 U.S. 656 (2001) is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that the rule established under Cage v. Louisiana (1990), where the Court held certain jury instructions unconstitutional because the words used did not suggest the degree of proof required by the "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard, was not "made retroactive to cases on collateral review by the Supreme Court." Tyler is the primary case regarding the retroactivity of new rules to successive habeas petitions.
Howes v. Fields, 565 U.S. 499 (2012), was a decision by the U.S. Supreme Court that an interrogation of a prisoner was not a custodial interrogation per se, and certainly it was not "clearly established federal law" that it was custodial, as would be required by the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (AEDPA). Instead, the Court said, whether the interrogation was custodial depended on the specific circumstances, and moreover, in the particular circumstances of this case, it was not custodial. This decision overturned the rule of the Sixth Circuit, and denied the prisoner's habeas corpus petition.
