McCarthy v. Hernandez · ¶33
As relevant here, a federal court may grant habeas relief on a claim that a state court has resolved on the merits only if that decision was “contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal law.” § 2254(d)(1). Only the holdings of this Court clearly establish federal law. White v. Woodall, 572 U. S. 415, 419 (2014). “[S]tate-court determinations on state-law questions” are “no part of a federal court's habeas review of a state conviction.” Estelle, 502 U. S., at 67–68. AEDPA instead allows a federal court to correct only “ `extreme malfunctions' ” in the resolution of federal issues by the criminal justice systems of the sovereign States. Harrington v. Richter, 562 U. S. 86, 102 (2011). A decision is “contrary to” our holdings if it applies a rule that “ `contradicts' ” them. Lafer v. Cooper, 566 U. S. 156, 173 (2012). And a decision “unreasonabl[y]…Read in context ›
preliminary print (page proof)
Source edition
Passage preview. Read in context for the complete text, notes and references.