Klein v. Martin · ¶28
As we have noted many times, AEDPA sharply limits federal review of habeas claims raised by state prisoners. A federal court may grant habeas relief on a claim that a state court resolved on the merits only when the state court's “decision” was “contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal law,” or “was based on an unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the evidence presented” in state court. 28 U. S. C. § 2254(d). These standards require federal courts to give the “benefit of the doubt” to merits decisions issued by the courts of the sovereign States. Woodford v. Visciotti, 537 U. S. 19, 24 (2002) (per curiam). AEDPA review provides an important but limited safeguard: It protects against “ `extreme malfunctions' ” in the state courts' adjudication of constitutional claims. Harrington v. Richter, 562 U. S. 86, 102 (2011). So in order…Read in context ›
preliminary print (page proof)
Source edition
Passage preview. Read in context for the complete text, notes and references.