Open main menu

Greene v. Fisher, 565 U.S. 34 (2011), is a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States involving the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (AEDPA), which sets the standard of review for habeas corpus petitions brought in federal court to challenge state court convictions. AEDPA requires that to be set aside, the state court judgment must have been "contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal law as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States."

Greene v. Fisher
Seal of the United States Supreme Court
Argued October 11, 2011
Decided November 8, 2011
Full case nameEric Greene, aka Jarmaine Q. Trice v. Jon Fisher, Superintendent, State Correctional Institution at Smithfield, et al.
Docket no.10-637
Citations565 U.S. 34 (more)
132 S. Ct. 38; 181 L. Ed. 2d 336; 2011 U.S. LEXIS 8077; 80 U.S.L.W. 4013
ArgumentOral argument
Case history
PriorPetition denied, 482 F.Supp.2d 624 (E.D. Pa. 2007); aff'd, sub nom. Greene v. Palakovich, 606 F. 3d 85 (3d Cir. 2010)
Under §2254(d)(1), "clearly established Federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States" includes only the Court's decisions as of the time of the relevant state-court adjudication on the merits. Third Circuit affirmed.
Court membership
Chief Justice
John Roberts
Associate Justices
Antonin Scalia · Anthony Kennedy
Clarence Thomas · Ruth Bader Ginsburg
Stephen Breyer · Samuel Alito
Sonia Sotomayor · Elena Kagan
Case opinion
MajorityScalia, joined by unanimous
Laws applied
28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1) (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act)

In a unanimous opinion delivered by Justice Antonin Scalia, the Court ruled in Greene that "clearly established Federal law" under AEDPA does not include Supreme Court decisions that are announced after the last adjudication of the merits in state court but before the defendant's conviction becomes final.

Further readingEdit

  • Associated Press (November 8, 2011), Court upholds conviction in Pa. murder case, Google News
  • Weiss, Debra Cassens (November 8, 2011), "Supreme Court Upholds Conviction of Defendant Who Missed Benefit of Redaction Ruling", ABA Journal, American Bar Association

External linksEdit