Rompilla v. Beard

Summary

Justice Kennedy, joined by the Chief Justice, Justice Scalia, and Justice Thomas, dissents in Rompilla v. Beard, arguing that the majority’s decision imposes an unprecedented rigid requirement that counsel review all prior conviction files in capital cases. Kennedy contends the ruling conflicts with Strickland’s deferential standard, ignores AEDPA deference to state courts, and risks reducing the quality of representation by diverting limited resources. He further argues that counsel’s investigation was reasonable under the circumstances and that Rompilla failed to demonstrate sufficient prejudice. The majority’s holding, in his view, creates a per se rule unsupported by precedent and undermines Strickland’s caution against mechanical guidelines.