Abdul-Kabir, Fka Cole v. Quarterman

Summary

The dissent argues that the state courts reasonably rejected the petitioners’ challenges to Texas’s capital-sentencing instructions because the governing precedent was unsettled when those courts ruled. It contends that the federal habeas statute did not permit courts to rely on later decisions or select one earlier precedent while disregarding contrary intervening decisions. Justice Scalia, dissenting, additionally argues that the relevant precedent affirmatively favored the State and that the Court’s decision effectively overrules that precedent retroactively.