Harris v. Reed, 489 U.S. 255 (1989), is a 1989 United States Supreme Court case in which the court held that the plain statement rule of Michigan v. Long applies to federal habeas proceedings originating from state court judgments. This rule prohibits federal courts from reviewing questions of federal law in state court decisions if the state court opinion contains a "plain statement" that its decision is based on an "adequate and independent state ground".[1][2]
| Harris v. Reed | |
|---|---|
 | |
| Argued October 12, 1988 Decided February 22, 1989 | |
| Full case name | Warren Lee Harris, Petitioner v. Marvin Reed, Warden, et al. |
| Citations | 489 U.S. 255 (more) |
| Case history | |
| Prior | 822 F.2d 684 (CA7 1987) |
| Holding | |
| The "plain statement rule" of Michigan v. Long is not limited to cases on direct review in this Court, but extends as well to cases on federal habeas review. | |
| Court membership | |
| |
| Case opinions | |
| Majority | Blackmun, joined by Rehnquist, Brennan, White, Marshall, Stevens, O'Connor, Scalia |
| Concurrence | Stevens |
| Concurrence | O'Connor, joined by Rehnquist, Scalia |
| Dissent | Kennedy |
References
edit- ^ Halper, Jason (1989-01-01). "Harris v. Reed: A New Look at Federal Habeas Jurisdiction over State Petitioners". Fordham Law Review. 58 (3): 493.
- ^ Dooley, Laura (1991-01-01). "Equal Protection and the Procedural Bar Doctrine in Federal Habeas Corpus". Fordham Law Review. 59 (5): 737.
External links
edit- Text of Harris v. Reed is available from: Cornell Findlaw Justia Library of Congress Oyez (oral argument audio)
 | This article related to the Supreme Court of the United States is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by expanding it. |