Official Case Law:
MegaLaw partners:
|
|
 |
U.S. SUPREME COURT OPINIONS
|
|
Home >
Federal Resources >
Supreme Court >
Recent USSC Opinions >
Tyler v. Cain
|
NOTE: Where it is feasible, a syllabus (headnote) will be released, as is being done in connection with this case, at the time the opinion is issued. The syllabus constitutes no part of the opinion of the Court but has been prepared by the Reporter of Decisions for the convenience of the reader. See United States v. Detroit Timber & Lumber Co., 200 U. S. 321, 337.
|
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
Syllabus
TYLER v.CAIN, WARDEN
CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR
THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 00–5961. Argued April 16, 2001—Decided June 28, 2001
After petitioner Tyler was convicted of second-degree murder and his
conviction was affirmed on appeal, he filed five state petitions for
postconviction relief and a federal habeas petition, all of which were
denied. After this Court decided Cage v. Louisiana, 498 U.S. 39— under which a jury instruction is unconstitutional if there is a reasonable
likelihood that the jury understood it to allow conviction without proof
beyond a reasonable doubt— Tyler filed a sixth state petition, claiming
that a jury instruction in his trial was substantively identical to the one
condemned in Cage. The State District Court denied relief,and the
State Supreme Court affirmed. Seeking to pursue his Cage claim in
federal court, Tyler moved the Fifth Circuit for permission to file a second habeas application, as required by the Antiterrorism and Effective
Death Penalty Act of 1996 (AEDPA). The court granted the motion.
The District Court then proceeded to the merits of Tyler’s claim and
denied relief. Although the Fifth Circuit affirmed, it stated that the
District Court had erred by failing first to determine whether Tyler
had satisfied AEDPA’s successive habeas standard, which requires a
district court to dismiss a claim in a second or successive application
unless, as relevant here, the applicant “shows ”that the “claim relies
on a new rule of constitutional law, made retroactive to cases on collateral review by the Supreme Court, that was previously unavailable. Ӥ2244(b)(2)(A)(emphasis added). Relying on Circuit precedent, the court concluded that Tyler did not meet this standard.
Held: The Cage rule was not “made retroactive to cases on collateral
review by the Supreme Court, ”within the meaning of §2244(b)(2)(A).
Pp. 4–11.
(a) Based on §2244(b)(2)(A)’s plain meaning when read as a whole, “made ”means “held.” Under the statute, this Court is the only entity
that can “ma[k]e” a new rule retroactive. The new rule becomes retroactive, not by the decisions of the lower court or by the combined
action of the Supreme Court and the lower courts, but simply by the
action of the Supreme Court. The only way the Supreme Court can,
by itself,l ay out and construct a rule’s retroactive effect is through a
holding. This Court does not “ma[k]e” a rule retroactive when it
merely establishes principles of retroactivity and leaves their application to lower courts. In such an event, the lower court (or perhaps
a combination of courts), not the Supreme Court, develops any legal
conclusion derived from those principles. Although the statute uses
the word “made,” not “held,” Congress is permitted to use synonyms
in a statute, see Williams v.Taylor, 529 U.S. 362, and “made” and
“held ”are synonyms in the §2244(b)(2)(A)context. This interpretation is necessary for the proper implementation of AEDPA’s collateral
review structure. The stringent 30-day time period that
§2244(b)(3)(D)imposes on courts of appeals determining whether an
application “makes a prima facie showing that [it] satisfies the [second habeas standard], ”§2244(b)(3)(C), suggests that those courts do
not have to engage in the difficult legal analysis that can be required
to determine questions of retroactivity in the first instance, but need
only rely on Supreme Court retroactivity holdings. Pp. 5–7.
(b) The Cage rule has not been “made retroactive ... by the Supreme Court.” Cage did not make itself retroactive, and neither did
Sullivan v. Louisiana, 508 U.S. 275, 279. Tyler contends that Sullivan’s reasoning makes it clear that retroactive application of Cage is warranted by the principles of Teague v.Lane, 489 U.S. 288, 311–313, in which the Court held that a new rule can be retroactive to
cases on collateral review only if it falls within one of two narrow
exceptions to the general rule of nonretroactivity. However, the most
Tyler can claim is that, based on Teague’s principles, this Court
should make Cage retroactive to cases on collateral review. It is
clear, however, that the Court has not done so. Although the Court
can make a rule retroactive over the course of two cases, it has not
done so here. Pp. 7–10.
(c) This Court declines to make Cage retroactive today. Because Tyler’s habeas application was his second,the District Court was required to dismiss it unless Tyler showed that this Court already had
made Cage retroactive. This Court cannot decide today whether Cage is retroactive to cases on collateral review, because that decision will not help Tyler in this case. Any statement on Cage’s retroactivity would be dictum, so this Court declines to comment further on the issue. Pp. 10–11.
218 F.3d 744,affirmed.
THOMAS, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which REHNQUIST,
C.J., and O’CONNOR, SCALIA, and KENNEDY, JJ., joined. O’CONNOR, J.,
filed a concurring opinion. BREYER, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in
which STEVENS, SOUTER, and GINSBURG, JJ., joined.
|
|
|
