Dissent from hearning en banc on AEDPA scope
In Evans v. Thompson (1st Cir.), Judge Lipez, joined by Judge Torruella, dissented from the denial of rehearing en banc. Drawing upon concurrences and dissents in the 6th, 7th, and 9th Circuits, Lipez argues that the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (“AEDPA”) “impermissibly restrict[s] the ability of the federal courts to carry out their constitutional function” in two ways.
First, when determining whether an individual is being held “in violation of the Constitution or laws . . . of the United States,’ 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a), a federal court may now only rely upon the Supreme Court’s clearly established jurisprudence to address the issue, rather than the full array of federal cases. Second, a federal court’s authority to grant habeas relief under § 2254(d)(1) is limited to those cases where a state court has “unreasonably” applied federal law.
Lipez argues that these congressional restraints on judicial reasoning and independent judgment impinge upon the judiciary’s power to “say what the law is.”
The underlying opinion may be found here.
See also How Appealing.
