Pitchford v. Cain · ¶45

This Court has long recognized the rigor of § 2254(d)'s requirements. Showing legal error, we have said, isn't enough to satisfy § 2254(d)(1). Instead, a petitioner must demonstrate that “no fairminded jurist could reach the state court's conclusion under this Court's precedents.” Brown v. Dav enport, 596 U. S. 118, 135 (2022) (internal quotation marks and alterations omitted). Likewise, to satisfy § 2254(d)(2), “it is not enough to show that reasonable minds reviewing the record might disagree about the [factual] finding in question.” Ibid. (internal quotation marks omitted). Instead, the finding must have so little support in the record that only an “unreasonable” jurist could make it. § 2254(d)(2); see also § 2254(e)(1).

preliminary print (page proof)
Source edition
Passage preview. Read in context for the complete text, notes and references.