Clearly Established Law Not Always Clear

Here is a petition to watch, with links to the opinion below, petition for cert and reply concerning the recent Cunningham decision in the Court. The appellate court held Cunningham did not establish new law, following Blakely, making defendant eligible for habeas relief under 2254. Frustrating, isn't it, to see how much litigation can arise from the simple phrase, "clearly established".

It was quite interesting to search the blog for "clearly established". There are too many prior posts to list here. A cursory review shows that this is a key concept in habeas and civil rights litigation. It is typically used in order to limit claims for relief.

Thank you Scotusblog:

Docket: 08-517
Title: Curry v. Bulter
Issue: Whether the Court’s ruling in California v. Cunningham (2007), which struck down part of the state’s sentencing scheme, was dictated by the Court’s ruling in Blakely v. Washington (2004) or instead announced a “new rule” that cannot be applied retroactively on habeas review.

• Opinion below (9th Circuit)
• Petition for certiorari
• Brief in opposition*
• Petitioner’s reply