Go to:	Briefs Menu	Cases Pending	Cases Decided

WILLIAMS v. TAYLOR

United States Supreme Court No. 98-8384

---

QUESTIONS PRESENTED: 1. In applying 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1), what kinds of challenges to state court decisions are evaluated under "contrary to . . . . clearly established Federal law," and what kinds are evaluated under "unreasonable application of clearly established Federal law"?

2. What standard is used to determine if an application is "unreasonable"?

ORAL ARGUMENT DATE: October 4, 1999

---

INTRODUCTION

Interest of amicus curiae
Summary of facts and case
Summary of argument

ARGUMENT - Part I

I. Section 2254(d) is a modified rule of res judicata

A. Plain meaning
B. Tradition--Generally
C. Tradition--Habeas
D. Teague survives

Part II

II. The Courts of Appeals have unanimously rejected the thesis that review of mixed questions is unchanged

Part III

III. "Contrary to" governs rule selection, "unreasonable application" governs rule application, and "clearly established" qualifies both

Parts IV and V

IV. There is nothing remotely unconstitutional about a modified rule of res judicata

V. The state court correctly identified and reasonably applied the governing rule

Conclusion

Appendix - Dodson v. Scott order (10th Circuit Court of Appeals)