Skip to main content
Federal & State Lawfederalstatelaw.com
Home/Federal/Cases
Supreme Court· 1/19/2011

Harrington v. Richter

Citations

  • 131 S. Ct. 770
  • 178 L. Ed. 2d 624
  • 562 U.S. 86
  • 2011 U.S. LEXIS 912

About this case

Harrington v. Richter

Harrington v. Richter, 562 U.S. 86 (2011), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the court held that the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 's standard for federal habeas relief applies even when a state court does not issue an opinion explaining the basis of its decision. The case also dealt with assistance of counsel issues under _Strickland v. Washington _.[1] [2]

References

(https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Harrington_v._Richter&action=edit&section=1 "Edit section: References")

  1. ↑ Harrington v. Richter, 562 U.S. 86 (2011).
  2. ↑ Elwood, John (January 20, 2011). "Opinion analysis: Federal habeas courts must defer to unexplained state summary dispositions" . SCOTUSblog. Retrieved January 17, 2026.

External links

(https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Harrington_v._Richter&action=edit&section=2 "Edit section: External links")

This article incorporates written opinion of a United States federal court . As a work of the U.S. federal government , the text is in the **public domain **.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Harrington_v._Richter&oldid=1351978737 "

Editorial context from Wikipedia (CC-BY-SA 4.0).

Oral argument

Source: CourtListener oral-argument corpus (CC0).

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

  • recognizing that § 2254(d), by its own terms, applies only to “claims previously ‘adjudicated on the merits’ in state-court proceedings”
  • recognizing that AEDPA “does not require that there be an opinion from the state court explaining the state court’s reasoning. . . .”
  • recognizing that Strickland “calls for an inquiry into the objective reasonableness of counsel’s performance, not counsel’s subjective state of mind”
  • recognizing that AEDPA “does not require that there be an opinion from the state court explaining the state court’s reasoning....’
  • holding that lower court had erred in suggesting that counsel must be prepared for \any contingency\
  • recognizing that § 2254(d) applies even if the state court issued a summary decision unaccompanied by an explanation

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Kennedy, Ginsburg, Kagan

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

2,557 cases in this archive cite this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Cites

37 cases in this archive are cited by this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Other cases named Harrington v. Richter

1 other CourtListener record shares this case name.

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.