Short thread on Wilson v. Sellers: SCOTUS says federal habeas courts should presume that summary state affirmances rely on the same reasons given below and courts should look through those summary decisions when doing a 2254(d) analysis. But it also says.../1
that the unreasonableness of the lower court's decision may itself provide some evidence to rebut the presumption that the higher court actually relied on that reasoning. This seems crazy to me and, at first read, sounds like SCOTUS is saying that state court decisions can .../2
only be unreasonable if the state highest court opinion is unreasonable (which is hard b/c most state high court opinions are summary decisions). BUT a close reading of the majority's opinion has important qualifying language. It says.../3
the unreasonableness of the lower court's decision provides "some evidence" that makes it less likely the state high court relied on that reasoning. It goes on to say that "additional evidence" that might not ordinarily be sufficient to rebut the presumption could rebut it .../4
under those circumstances. I read this to mean that there needs to be additional evidence -- something more than just an unreasonable lower court decision -- to rebut the presumption that the high court's decision rests on the same reasoning. There must be additional .../5
briefing on another ground to the state high court or something else clear in the record to show that the state high court relied on a different substantive reason. Federal defenders should point this out to head off arguments that the presumption is overcome anytime.../6
there is an unreasonable lower court decision. /end
