Brown v. Davenport

Brown v. Davenport
Argued October 5, 2021
Decided April 21, 2022
Full case nameMike Brown, Acting Warden v. Ervine Davenport
Docket no.20-826
Citations596 U.S. 118 (more)
ArgumentOral argument
Holding
When a state court has ruled on the merits of a state prisoner’s claim, a federal court cannot grant habeas relief without applying both the test this Court outlined in Brecht v. Abrahamson, 507 U.S. 619, and the one Congress prescribed in the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996; the Sixth Circuit erred in granting habeas relief to Mr. Davenport based solely on its assessment that he could satisfy the Brecht standard.
Court membership
Chief Justice
John Roberts
Associate Justices
Clarence Thomas · Stephen Breyer
Samuel Alito · Sonia Sotomayor
Elena Kagan · Neil Gorsuch
Brett Kavanaugh · Amy Coney Barrett
Case opinions
MajorityGorsuch, joined by Roberts, Thomas, Alito, Kavanaugh, Barrett
DissentKagan, joined by Breyer, Sotomayor
Laws applied
Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996

Brown v. Davenport, 596 U.S. 118 (2022), was a case decided by the United States Supreme Court. The case concerned whether habeas relief may be granted if the Brecht v. Abrahamson test alone is satisfied, or if the application of Chapman v. California by the state courts was unreasonable because of the AEDPA.[1] The court held that federal courts can not grant habeas relief when state courts have already ruled on a prisoner's claim, unless the situation satisfies the test laid out in Brecht v. Abrahamson, and the test laid out in AEDPA.

  1. ^ "Brown v. Davenport". SCOTUSblog. Retrieved July 20, 2021.