Bowe v. United States · ¶61
This differential treatment exists for good reason. Congress enacted AEDPA “to further the principles of comity, finality, and federalism.” Williams v. Taylor, 529 U. S. 420, 436 (2000). The Act “recognizes a foundational principle of our federal system: State courts are adequate forums for the vindication of federal rights.” Burt v. Titlow, 571 U. S. 12, 19 (2013). Out of respect for state courts and their ability “to adjudicate claims of constitutional wrong, AEDPA erect[ed] a formidable barrier to federal habeas relief for [state] prisoners.” Ibid. Federal courts “will not lightly conclude that a State's criminal justice system has experienced the `extreme malfunctio[n]' for which federal habeas relief is the remedy.” Id., at 20; see also Greene v. Fisher, 565 U. S. 34, 38 (2011) (observing that “the purpose of AEDPA is to ensure that federal habeas” review of state- court…Read in context ›
preliminary print (page proof)
Source edition
Passage preview. Read in context for the complete text, notes and references.