2254(d) "Contrary To" Prong Explicated

Last week, in Frantz v. Hazey, no. 05-16024 (9th Cir., Jan. 22, 2008) an en banc Ninth Circuit panel clarified how a federal habeas court is to proceed when it finds that a state court decision is contrary to US Supreme Court authority.

Under subdivision (d)(1) of 28 USC sec. 2254, habeas relief is available to a state prisoner who shows that the state court decision is contrary to or constitutes an unreasonable application of US Supreme Court authority. The question for the court was whether habeas relief is available simply upon a showing that the state court applied the wrong constitutional standard. In an opinion authored by Judge Berzon, the court explained that the petitioner, beyond showing that the state court decision was "contrary to" SCOTUS caselaw, must also show an actual constitutional violation. This is because subdivision (a) of section 2254 permits habeas relief only to remedy a violation of the federal constitution (or, rarely, federal laws or treaties). Whether there is such a violation of the federal constitution is a question reviewed de novo, giving no deference to the state court decision because it was contrary to SCOTUS authority. In addition, under this de novo review, the federal habeas court is not limited to the reasoning of the state court, although there are some limitations: (1) the court's "review is confined to the alleged wrong and the actual course of events at trial and on appeal" and (2) "when the constitutional right itself is tied to the
reasons for a trial court’s decision ... even on de novo review we must focus on the trial court’s reasoning to determine whether a constitutional violation occurred."