by Dale Chappell

If you’re reading this, you’re probably looking to understand how to challenge your state court conviction in federal court. Federal habeas corpus petitions give you that chance, but since 1996, the path has gotten a lot harder. The Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (“AEDPA”) introduced strict limits on federal review of state convictions, creating one of the toughest procedural standards any petitioner will face—proving that a state court’s decision was “unreasonable” for purposes of AEDPA.

Under AEDPA, a federal court isn’t allowed to grant relief simply because it disagrees with the state court’s ruling. You have to prove that the state court’s decision was so flawed that no “fairminded” judge could agree with it. This standard, set by the United States Supreme Court’s decision in Harrington v. Richter, 562 U.S. 86 (2011), created what is informally known as the “Richter barrier.” In Richter, the Supreme Court held that federal courts should imagine any possible reason the state court might have had for denying relief, even if the state court didn’t give any explanation. So, federal judges must not only find the state court’s decision was wrong but also unreasonable in a way that’s beyond what any reasonable jurist would support.

In this article, we’re going to walk through the essential steps and strategies you need to understand this high bar and prove unreasonableness under AEDPA. We’ll cover how to build a case, what you need to show, and how to navigate obstacles you’re likely to face—from filing deadlines to handling unexplained state court rulings. With this guidance, you’ll have a clearer understanding of how to tackle the AEDPA standard, giving your petition a stronger chance at breaking through the Richter barrier.

The Richter Barrier: Understanding What ‘Unreasonableness’ Really Means

Let’s begin by unpacking what “unreasonable” truly means under AEDPA. This standard—often referred to as the Richter standard—sets the bar much higher than merely proving that the state court’s decision was incorrect. Under AEDPA, it’s not enough to show that the state court’s ruling was wrong; the petitioner must demonstrate that it was so deeply flawed that no fair-minded judge could agree with it. This concept of “unreasonableness” was cemented in the Supreme Court’s decision in Richter, a case that created a nearly insurmountable wall around federal habeas review by introducing a hypothetical “could have supported” framework.

The Richter decision established that a state court’s decision will stand as long as any “reasonable argument” could support it. According to the Court, “a state court’s determination that a claim lacks merit precludes federal habeas relief so long as ‘fairminded jurists could disagree’ on the correctness of the state court’s decision.” This means that even if the federal court disagrees with the state court’s ruling, it cannot grant relief unless it finds that no reasonable justification exists. As the Richter Court emphasized, AEDPA’s standard “preserves authority to issue the writ in cases where there is no possibility fairminded jurists could disagree that the state court’s decision conflicts with this Court’s precedents.” This standard does not ask whether the state court’s reasoning was perfect but whether any fair-minded jurist could support the outcome, even if that support relies on arguments that the state court never articulated.

Imagine you’re in a debate, and you believe your position is stronger than your opponent’s. Under Richter, it’s not enough to simply argue better. You must prove that the opposing argument is so weak that no reasonable person could support it under any circumstance, taking into account arguments not actually made by your opponent but could have been. The task then is to present the state court’s errors in a way that makes them appear obviously beyond reason—far off the mark of what any fair-minded judge would consider acceptable.

The Supreme Court’s insistence on this high level of deference under Richter is reflected in their description of AEDPA as a statute that places “a formidable barrier to federal habeas relief for prisoners whose claims have been adjudicated in state court.” The Court’s reasoning here is straightforward: if even a hypothetical fair-minded judge could find a reasonable basis for the state court’s decision, federal habeas relief should not be granted. The standard focuses not on the correctness of the decision but on its reasonableness. This level of deference “stops short of imposing a complete bar on federal-court relitigation of claims already rejected in state proceedings,” but it “preserves authority to issue the writ in cases where there is no possibility fairminded jurists could disagree.” Richter.

Pro Tip: Focus on Highlighting Fundamental Errors

Federal courts under AEDPA are not looking to micromanage or second-guess state court decisions. They’re looking for glaring flaws in reasoning—errors that no reasonable judge could overlook. This goes beyond mere mistakes; the federal court needs to see errors that strike at the heart of fairness, factual accuracy, or procedural integrity. According to Richter, the bar is high enough that federal relief is only available when the state court’s decision “was so lacking in justification that there was an error well understood and comprehended in existing law beyond any possibility for fair-minded disagreement.”

For example, in Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322 (2003), the Supreme Court granted habeas relief because the state court had ignored substantial evidence of racial bias in jury selection. The state court’s fact-finding process was flawed in a way that defied reasonable interpretation of the facts presented. In Miller-El, the petitioner demonstrated how jury selection patterns showed a clear racial bias, a glaring procedural issue that no fairminded judge would ignore. Though Miller-El was decided prior to Richter’s harsh standard, the compelling evidence of racial bias might still pass the “no fairminded jurist” threshold, but it would depend heavily on how clearly the evidence showed that the state court’s decision defied basic principles of fairness and justice.

The petitioner’s task is to focus on these kinds of foundational issues. Emphasize any significant missteps by the state court, especially those that directly impact the fairness of the proceedings. To meet the Richter standard, your arguments should clearly show why the errors in the state court’s decision go far beyond ordinary mistakes. By underscoring points in the record where the state court’s decision was “lacking in justification,” you can make it clear that no fair-minded judge would support the decision.

In Wilson v. Sellers, 138 S. Ct. 1188 (2018), the Supreme Court reinforced that when state courts issue unexplained decisions, federal courts should “look through” these summary denials to the last reasoned state-court opinion. This can be crucial for petitioners because it allows them to address the specific errors outlined in the lower court’s reasoning rather than fighting an imagined or hypothetical rationale. Yet, even with the “look-through” rule, federal courts under Richter are required to consider whether any reasonable argument could uphold the state court’s decision.

Building a Strong Case: Documenting Errors Beyond Debate

When building your case, you want to focus on creating a record that shows the state court’s decision isn’t just arguable, it’s way off track. Here are some tips for demonstrating fundamental errors that no fair-minded judge could overlook:

Emphasize Key Evidence the State Court Ignored: In Wiggins v. Smith, 539 U.S. 510 (2003), habeas relief was granted due to the state court’s failure to consider critical mitigating evidence. In that case, defense counsel’s failure to investigate mitigating factors was overlooked by the state court, leading the federal court to deem the oversight unreasonable. If your case includes similar overlooked evidence, make it a central point to show that the state court ignored facts that any reasonable judge would consider.

Highlight Procedural Missteps: The procedural integrity of a trial can be just as critical as its factual findings. If the state court refused to conduct an evidentiary hearing or failed to apply established legal standards, these can be framed as unreasonable actions. Demonstrating a state court’s disregard for proper procedures can strengthen your argument that the court’s decision lacks reasonable justification.

The Two-Prong Pathway: Legal and Factual Unreasonableness

Under § 2254(d), federal habeas petitions can challenge a state court decision as unreasonable through two primary pathways: (1) by attacking the application of federal law or (2) the determination of facts. Each of these paths comes with specific hurdles, and understanding how to approach each one effectively can make a difference in building a solid case for habeas relief. Here’s a closer look at these two paths and the challenges they present.

Path 1: Unreasonable Application of Federal Law

Section 2254(d)(1) allows petitioners to argue that the state court’s decision was “contrary to” or an “unreasonable application of” clearly established federal law. But proving unreasonableness under this prong goes beyond simply showing that the state court’s ruling was wrong. To succeed, you must demonstrate that the state court either applied the wrong legal principle altogether or applied the correct principle in a way that no reasonable judge would endorse.

Applying the Wrong Legal Principle

One route under § 2254(d)(1) is to show that the state court’s ruling directly contradicts clearly established Supreme Court precedent, making the decision “contrary to” federal law. The Supreme Court in Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S. 362 (2000), clarified this by stating that a state court decision is “contrary to” federal law if it “applies a rule that contradicts the governing law set forth in [Supreme Court] cases” or reaches a different outcome on nearly identical facts. In other words, if the state court ignored a binding Supreme Court decision that directly applies to the case, this could be grounds for relief.

For example, in Smith v. Cain, 565 U.S. 73 (2012), the Supreme Court found that the state court’s decision was contrary to federal law because it failed to apply the Brady standard, which requires prosecutors to disclose exculpatory evidence. Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963). Smith involved the withholding of evidence favorable to the defense, a clear violation of the prosecution’s Brady obligations. If the state court ignores such a fundamental constitutional rule, it can serve as a strong basis for arguing that the decision was “contrary to” federal law.

When making an argument based on a “contrary to” federal law claim, it’s crucial to identify any Supreme Court precedents that align closely with your case. Look for rulings that directly establish the federal rule you believe was ignored or contradicted by the state court. If the state court’s decision clashes with a binding federal rule, this approach can be one of the most powerful ways to attack its reasonableness.

Applying the Correct Principle Unreasonably

This is where things get more complex. Even if the state court applied the correct federal law, you can still argue that it did so in an unreasonably erroneous way. The Williams Court explained that a decision can be considered an “unreasonable application” of federal law if it identifies the correct governing legal rule but applies it in a way that no reasonable jurist would accept.

For instance, in Wiggins, the Supreme Court held that the state court unreasonably applied the Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984), standard for ineffective assistance of counsel. In Wiggins, defense counsel failed to investigate significant mitigating evidence during the sentencing phase, and the state court’s ruling ignored this oversight, despite the fact that it could have substantially affected the outcome. The Wiggins Court found this to be an unreasonable application of Strickland because the oversight was so severe that no reasonable judge could have upheld defense counsel’s performance as adequate.

To prove that the state court unreasonably applied a legal principle, make your argument specific and detailed. Identify exactly how the court misapplied a specific law in a way that deviates from established standards. Demonstrating that the state court’s error was severe enough to be beyond reasonable application can be a critical component of meeting the unreasonableness standard.

Path 2: Unreasonable Determination of Facts

Section 2254(d)(2) involves attacking the state court’s interpretation of the facts. Here, the standard is exceptionally high—you must show that the state court’s factual findings were not just wrong but so off base that they cannot be justified under any rationale. This is not about proving that the state court made an error in judgment; rather, it’s about proving that the court’s conclusion was so flawed that no fairminded judge could agree with it.

A good example of this approach is Miller-El, where the Supreme Court granted habeas relief based on racial discrimination in jury selection that the state court had overlooked. In Miller-El, the petitioner presented strong evidence that jury selection practices were racially biased, including a pattern of strikes against Black jurors. The Supreme Court found that the state court’s acceptance of the jury selection process was unreasonable given the evidence of discrimination presented. This ruling highlights how important it is to document every factual inconsistency and procedural misstep that establishes the state court’s findings were objectively unreasonable.

When challenging the state court’s determination of facts, focus on identifying clear mistakes in how the facts were found or interpreted. These can include ignored pieces of evidence, misinterpretations of testimonies, or procedural errors in the way evidence was gathered or considered. If the state court failed to consider critical facts or ignored reliable evidence that would change the case’s outcome, use this as the basis for your claim of factual unreasonableness.

Pro Tip: Prepare a Strong Case Under Each Prong

When building your case under AEDPA, consider which prong offers the strongest foundation for your petition, and try to make a case under both paths if possible. However, avoid vague or generalized arguments. Each claim should be supported by specific legal or factual flaws that demonstrate why the state court’s decision was fundamentally flawed.

Concrete examples and targeted arguments can make it difficult for a federal court to dismiss your petition. For example, if you are arguing that the state court misapplied Strickland in an ineffective assistance claim, clearly outline each instance of the counsel’s failure and connect these failures directly to how they impacted the trial’s outcome. In cases like Wiggins and Williams, the Supreme Court was persuaded by the petitioner’s ability to pinpoint specific errors in how the law was applied or how critical facts were mishandled.

By building a detailed, clear argument under each prong, you strengthen your petition and increase the likelihood of overcoming the high unreasonableness standard set by AEDPA. Each argument should showcase why the decision in your case was not just wrong but objectively unreasonable, using the record and specific case law to demonstrate the severity of the error.

Building Your Case on the State Record: Making Every Word Count

Under AEDPA, federal habeas review is strictly limited to the record already created in state court, which means federal courts can’t consider new evidence. This restriction makes it essential to use every detail in the state court’s record effectively. Going through each page carefully to identify any gaps, oversights, or errors is key to building a strong case for why the state court’s decision was unreasonable. Here’s how to make the most out of that record.

Reviewing the Record Thoroughly

When reviewing the state court record, look for anything that the court missed or mishandled. This might include important witness statements, overlooked forensic evidence, or procedural steps the court failed to follow. Every missed detail is an opportunity to show that the state court’s decision went off track.

For example, suppose a key witness testified that they saw someone else leaving the scene around the time of the crime, casting serious doubt on your guilt. If the court ignored this testimony in its decision, you’d want to emphasize this oversight in your petition, arguing that any reasonable judge would have considered this testimony as a crucial factor in providing a fair trial.

Or imagine a case where forensic evidence like fingerprints or DNA samples pointed away from you, but the court dismissed this evidence without much explanation. Bringing this to light in your petition could help show that the court’s ruling disregarded compelling facts, making the decision not just wrong but unreasonably flawed.

In Wiggins, habeas relief was granted because the state court overlooked critical mitigating evidence in an ineffective assistance of counsel claim. The defense counsel failed to investigate evidence of the petitioner’s troubled background, which could have led to a more lenient sentence. If you’re in a similar situation—where evidence of mitigating factors was ignored or never considered—highlighting this oversight can demonstrate how the state court’s decision lacked fairness.

Documenting Procedural Errors

Beyond the content of evidence, examine the record for any procedural errors that compromised the fairness of your trial. Procedural issues like the refusal to hold an evidentiary hearing, ignoring exculpatory evidence, or excluding important testimony based on minor technicalities can all suggest that the decision wasn’t just incorrect, but it also resulted from ignoring established trial procedures.

For instance, say the court refused to allow an evidentiary hearing where you would have been able to present new facts or testimony critical to your defense. Documenting this refusal as a procedural error strengthens your argument by showing that the court prevented relevant facts from being fully considered—something no fair-minded judge would ignore.

Similarly, imagine that a witness who could have provided an alibi for you was excluded from testifying because of a procedural technicality. Highlighting how the exclusion of such testimony tilted the trial unfairly against you can help underscore that the state court’s approach went beyond reasonable limits.

Pro Tip: Build a Detailed, Comprehensive Record

Every detail in your state court record matters. Your goal is to build a case that shows the state court’s decision wasn’t just a matter of disagreement—it was fundamentally flawed. Document every gap, each piece of ignored evidence, and every procedural misstep as completely as possible. For instance, list all the overlooked testimonies, forensic analyses, or legal errors to show how the court’s approach missed key aspects of the case.

By weaving these specific flaws into your petition, you show the federal court that any reasonable judge, reviewing the same record, would have likely reached a different, fairer conclusion. This attention to detail makes your case stand out and reinforces your argument that the state court’s decision didn’t just contain minor mistakes but suffered from serious, unreasonable oversights that compromised the fair administration of justice.

Dealing with Unexplained Denials: How to Challenge Hypotheticals

If the state court denied your claim without providing any reasoning—commonly referred to as a “postcard denial”—Richter requires that federal courts consider hypothetical justifications for the decision. This approach poses unique obstacles for petitioners, as it allows federal courts to imagine reasons the state court could have had for denying relief, even if those reasons aren’t explicitly recorded. In practice, this makes it significantly harder to prove unreasonableness, since a federal court can effectively “fill in the blanks” by hypothesizing possible justifications. Here’s how to address these hypothetical justifications strategically.

Using the Look-Through Rule

The Supreme Court provided some relief from this stringent standard in Sellers, which allows federal courts to “look through” unexplained decisions to the last reasoned state court opinion. This rule applies when an earlier state court opinion provided specific reasoning before a final unexplained denial. If a lower state court issued a reasoned opinion, federal courts may use that as the basis for their review rather than relying on imagined justifications.

For instance, let’s say a state trial court issued a reasoned opinion that denied your habeas claim, outlining why it found the claim unmeritorious. If the state appellate court or supreme court later denied relief without any explanation—that is, a “postcard denial”—the federal court can look through to the trial court’s opinion. This approach is particularly beneficial because it allows petitioners to challenge specific errors within the state court’s reasoning, as opposed to contesting hypothetical justifications. Wilson established that unless there’s a reason to presume otherwise, a federal court should assume that an unexplained higher court decision adopts the reasoning of the last reasoned lower court opinion.

Wilson can be a powerful tool, as it prevents federal courts from crafting new justifications out of thin air if there’s an actual reasoned opinion to look back on. By invoking the “look-through” rule, you can more directly address the actual rationale provided by the state court, which allows you to pinpoint specific missteps, overlooked facts, or misapplications of federal law. Instead of arguing against every conceivable reason for denial, you can target concrete aspects of the last reasoned opinion, focusing your argument on where and why it falls short.

Challenging Hypothetical Justifications

However, if no reasoned opinion is available from any lower court (a pure “postcard denial”), you face a different challenge—convincing the federal court that any potential reasons for denial wouldn’t withstand scrutiny. When facing a complete lack of reasoning, Richter requires petitioners to show that no fairminded judge could support the state court’s denial based on the record alone.

To counter hypothetical justifications, concentrate on demonstrating that the state court’s decision lacks any reasonable basis in the factual record or the applicable law. For example, if critical evidence was presented in the state court proceedings that supports your claim, emphasize this point and show that ignoring it would be unreasonable. Richter does allow federal courts to hypothesize justifications, but these justifications must still have some grounding in the case record. Focus on building a detailed, well-documented narrative that outlines how the record supports your claim and undermines any possible justification for denial.

Consider Miller-El, where the Supreme Court granted habeas relief due to racial bias in jury selection that the state court had overlooked. In Miller-El, the petitioner demonstrated that the state court’s decision to ignore patterns of discriminatory jury selection was not just mistaken but unreasonable in light of the clear evidence on record. By documenting how the state court failed to engage with significant evidence, you make it difficult for the federal court to invent plausible reasons for the state court’s denial that align with the record.

Pro Tip: Turning Hypotheticals to Your Advantage

If you’re dealing with a hypothetical-based denial, use it as an opportunity to highlight how unreasonable the state court’s decision is by pointing to specific evidence it ignored. Frame your argument to show that no fair-minded jurist could reasonably support the decision. For example, identify critical testimonies, forensic evidence, or legal standards that the state court overlooked. Emphasize that these elements in the record would have compelled any fair judge to question the ruling. By listing specific, substantial pieces of evidence that directly support your position, you create a compelling case that undercuts hypothetical justifications.

Using this approach makes it more difficult for the federal court to imagine justifications that aren’t grounded in the record. Every point you make based on clear, undisputed evidence strengthens your position that a fairminded judge would have reached a different conclusion. By constructing your argument around these concrete elements, you focus the federal court’s attention on the objective facts, reducing the likelihood that hypothetical justifications will hold up.

Presenting Persuasive Arguments: Framing for a ‘Fairminded Jurist’

The Richter standard requires petitioners to show that “no fairminded jurist” could have supported the state court’s decision, which goes beyond merely proving an error. Under AEDPA, you must demonstrate that the state court’s reasoning was not just mistaken but fundamentally flawed in a way that fails even the most minimal standard of fairness. This high bar focuses on showing that the decision was so far off base that any reasonable judge would see its defects.

In Richter, the Supreme Court articulated this “fairminded jurist” standard to reinforce AEDPA’s deference to state court rulings. According to the Court, federal habeas relief is warranted only when there is no reasonable basis for the state court’s decision. This approach shifts the focus from whether the decision was merely wrong to whether it was so flawed that it violates basic principles of fairness. For petitioners, this means that their arguments need to underscore how the state court’s ruling doesn’t just misapply the law but defies fundamental fairness to an extent that no reasonable judge could agree with it.

Emphasize Key Supreme Court Precedents

One effective way to meet the Richter standard is to reference Supreme Court cases that set clear, widely accepted legal standards. Using landmark cases like Strickland and Brady provides a powerful baseline, helping to show how far the state court deviated from established norms of fairness and justice.

For example, in Strickland, the Supreme Court set the standard for ineffective assistance of counsel claims, requiring that the defense attorney’s performance must have been objectively unreasonable and that this deficiency must have prejudiced the defense. In cases where a petitioner is arguing ineffective assistance, grounding the argument in Strickland and demonstrating how the state court ignored or misapplied it can strengthen the claim of unreasonableness. For instance, if the state court minimized major attorney failures, such as failure to investigate exculpatory evidence, this oversight can be framed as a departure from Strickland’s principles that no fairminded judge would support.

Similarly, Brady established that the prosecution must disclose exculpatory evidence to the defense. In Smith, the Supreme Court found that the state court’s failure to apply Brady correctly violated basic fairness, given the prosecution’s withholding of favorable evidence. If your case involves prosecutorial misconduct or withheld evidence, framing it in terms of Brady violations allows you to argue that the state court’s decision conflicts with a clear and essential rule of fairness set forth by the Supreme Court. By tying your argument to these Supreme Court standards, you emphasize that the state court’s reasoning was not just mistaken but fundamentally contrary to what justice demands.

Frame the Argument as a Failure in Fairness

To meet the Richter standard, your arguments need to go beyond specific errors and focus on how the state court’s decision undermined basic principles of fairness. This isn’t about debating minor mistakes or areas of reasonable disagreement—it’s about framing the court’s decision as failing the foundational standards that any fair trial requires. Use terms like “fundamentally flawed,” “failed to meet standards of fairness,” or “violated essential principles of justice” to make it clear that the errors in the state court’s decision were not just minor missteps but significant failures that affected the integrity of the process.

When crafting your arguments, emphasize how the state court’s ruling disregarded crucial evidence or applied the law in a way that no reasonable jurist would accept. For example, if the state court ignored exculpatory evidence that could have changed the outcome, this is more than a simple error—it’s a disregard for fairness that strikes at the core of justice and should be expressly framed as such. Describe how the state court’s actions or omissions deprived the petitioner of a fair trial, highlighting why these issues are too severe to be brushed off as reasonable disagreements.

Pro Tip: Building Strong, Fairness-Based Language

To successfully argue under the Richter standard, it’s essential to use language that reflects the core concept of “fairminded jurists.” This is the standard that the federal court will use to assess whether the state court’s decision falls within acceptable bounds of reasonableness. Use strong and explicit fairness-centered language to make your argument compelling and focused on justice.

Examples of effective language include: “No reasonable judge would ignore the overwhelming evidence of [X],” or, “No fairminded jurist could uphold a decision that overlooked this critical error.” These phrases underscore that the issues at hand aren’t just debatable but strike at the very foundation of justice and due process. When you frame the argument in terms of fundamental fairness, you make it clear that the errors go beyond ordinary mistakes and represent a breakdown of justice. Thus, be sure to use the actual language that the Supreme Court and federal courts use when discussing this area of the law.

By focusing on fairness, you make a compelling case that no fair-minded jurist could have supported the state court’s decision, aligning your argument with the Richter standard and strengthening your petition for federal habeas relief under AEDPA.

Procedural Barriers: Filing Timelines, Exhaustion, and Procedural Default

Beyond proving unreasonableness, you must meet AEDPA’s strict procedural requirements. Missing a deadline or failing to follow procedural rules can result in immediate dismissal of your claim, regardless of its strength. Here’s how to stay on track:

File Within AEDPA’s One-Year Deadline: AEDPA imposes a strict one-year deadline from when your conviction becomes “final” to file a federal habeas petition. This limit is unforgiving, so tracking your dates carefully is essential. For example, if you completed state-level appeals on May 1, 2022, your federal habeas deadline will fall on May 1, 2023. If you’re uncertain, consult with someone familiar with AEDPA’s timeline rules. Failing to file within this one-year window can lead to your case being dismissed outright, regardless of the substantive merits.

Exhaust All State Remedies: Before filing in federal court, you must raise each claim at every level of the state court system. Federal courts won’t consider any claims that haven’t gone through all the necessary state channels. For instance, if you have a claim that the trial court made an error in excluding critical evidence, you need to ensure that this issue was raised in both your direct appeal and any state postconviction proceedings. If not, the federal court may dismiss it for “failure to exhaust” state remedies.

Address Procedural Default: If you didn’t raise a claim in state court, it may be procedurally barred from federal review. However, in some cases, procedural default can be overcome. For example, Martinez v. Ryan, 566 U.S. 1 (2012), allows a claim to proceed if ineffective assistance of postconviction counsel prevented you from raising it earlier. Say, for example, your trial attorney failed to introduce key exculpatory evidence, and you couldn’t raise this ineffective assistance claim in state court because your postconviction attorney also missed it. Under Martinez, you might argue that this failure was due to ineffective postconviction counsel, which could allow the federal court to consider the claim despite procedural default.

Pro Tip: Procedural Awareness as a Key Strategy

Treat AEDPA’s procedural rules as part of your overall strategy. Consider creating a detailed checklist to track each claim through the state court system, keeping close tabs on filing dates, relevant deadlines, and whether each claim has been fully exhausted. This checklist can help you avoid the risk of leaving a claim unexhausted or missing a critical filing date. Missing even one procedural step can end your case prematurely, so treat this as a foundational part of building a strong petition.

Conclusion

The path to federal habeas relief under AEDPA is steep, but it’s not impossible. By understanding § 2254(d) and mastering the procedural steps, you can present your strongest case that meets AEDPA’s high standards. Proving unreasonableness isn’t easy, but with careful preparation, you can create a petition that highlights every legal and factual error in the state court’s decision.  

Source: Rutledge, Josiah, Richter’s Scale: Proving Unreasonableness Under AEDPA (August 1, 2024). 32 Geo. Mason L. Rev.

Subscribe today

Already a subscriber? Login