Danforth v. Minnesota

Summary

The Supreme Court held that the federal retroactivity rule from Teague v. Lane does not restrict state courts from applying new constitutional rules of criminal procedure more broadly in state post-conviction proceedings than required for federal habeas relief. The Court reasoned that Teague stems from federal habeas statutory authority and federalism concerns unique to federal courts reviewing state judgments. Chief Justice Roberts, dissenting, argued that federal retroactivity law is binding on states under the Supremacy Clause to ensure uniformity.