Beard v. Kindler

Summary

The Supreme Court held that a state procedural rule is not automatically "inadequate" under the adequate state ground doctrine—and therefore not unenforceable on federal habeas review—merely because the rule is discretionary rather than mandatory; a discretionary rule can be "firmly established and regularly followed" even though its proper exercise may permit consideration of a federal claim in some cases but not others. Because the Third Circuit had treated Pennsylvania's fugitive forfeiture rule as inadequate for essentially that reason, the Court vacated its judgment and remanded, leaving the Third Circuit to address Kindler's contention that Pennsylvania courts actually applied a new mandatory dismissal rule rather than a discretionary one. The Court declined the Commonwealth's invitation to announce a broader standard for inadequacy, deeming the atypical escape-based default an unsuitable vehicle for sweeping guidance. Justice Kennedy, concurring and joined by Justice Thomas, would make clear that the doctrine's underlying purposes do not bar a State from enforcing a sensible escape-forfeiture rule even if first fully elaborated in the case itself, absent a showing of purpose or pattern to evade constitutional guarantees.