Wilson v. Sellers - Post-Decision SCOTUScast

On April 17, 2018, the Supreme Court decided Wilson v. Sellers, a case involving the standard federal courts should use to analyze a state appellate court’s summary denial of habeas relief when applying federal habeas law. 

 In 1996, Marion Wilson was convicted of murder and sentenced to death, and both his conviction and sentence were confirmed on direct appeal. Wilson then sought habeas relief in state superior court, claiming that his trial counsel offered ineffective assistance in investigating mitigation evidence for purposes of sentencing. The superior court denied habeas relief, concluding that any new evidence was cumulative of evidence presented at triall as well as inadmissible, and likely would not have changed the outcome. In a one-sentence order the Georgia Supreme Court summarily denied Wilson’s subsequent application for a certificate of probable cause to appeal. Wilson then filed a habeas petition in federal district court, which also denied relief.  Even assuming Wilson’s counsel had been deficient, the court deferred to the state habeas court’s conclusion that these deficiencies did not ultimately cause prejudice to Wilson.  On appeal a divided U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, sitting en banc, held that--rather than “looking through” the Georgia Supreme Court’s summary denial to the reasoning of the lower state habeas court--the district court should have considered what reasons “could have supported” the state supreme court’s summary decision.  The U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari to resolve the resulting split among the circuit courts of appeals on whether federal habeas law employs a “look through” presumption. 

By a vote of 6-3, the Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the Eleventh Circuit and remanded the case. In an opinion delivered by Justice Breyer, the Court held that a federal habeas court reviewing an unexplained state-court decision on the merits should “look through” that decision to the last related state-court decision that provides a relevant rationale and presume that the unexplained decision adopted the same reasoning; the state may rebut the presumption by showing that the unexplained decision most likely relied on different grounds than the reasoned decision below. 

Justice Breyer’s majority opinion was joined by the Chief Justice and Justices Kennedy, Ginsburg, Sotomayor, and Kagan.  Justice Gorsuch filed a dissenting opinion, which was joined by Justices Thomas and Alito. 

To discuss the case, we have Lee Rudofsky, Solicitor General for the State of Arkansas.