The case was decided on June 23, 1997, with a 5-4 majority in favor of Aaron Lindh, reversing the judgment of the Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit.
The case centered on the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (AEDPA), which changed the rules for habeas corpus petitions, but the Supreme Court held that these changes did not apply retroactively to cases filed before the Act's enactment.
Also worth reading: What criteria does the Supreme Court use when deciding to overturn a legal precedent? · How do I conduct research to predict how the court will rule in a case? · What is the significance of Witness 16 in the FBI interview Exhibit D 470 ATT 4?
Aaron Lindh, the petitioner, was a federal prisoner convicted of murder and other offenses, and had filed a habeas corpus petition in the United States District Court for the District of Maryland.
The Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the District Court's denial of Lindh's petition, which led to the Supreme Court granting certiorari to consider the case.
The Seventh Circuit had ruled that the new version of 28 U.S.C.
§ 2254(d) applied to pending cases, which conflicted with the holdings of other circuits.
Justice Souter delivered the opinion of the Court, with Chief Justice Rehnquist, Justice Scalia, Justice Kennedy, and Justice Thomas dissenting.
The Court's decision has been cited in subsequent cases, including those involving the scope of AEDPA's amendments to the habeas corpus statute.
The Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 signed into law on April 24, 1996, enacted the present 28 U.S.C.
§ 2254(d).
The Seventh Circuit's decision was in conflict with the holdings of Edens v.
Hannigan (10th Cir.
- and Boria v.
Keane (2nd Cir.
1996).
The case of Hunter v.
United States (7th Cir.
- was also cited in Lindh v.
Murphy, as it relied on the same section of the habeas corpus statute.
The Supreme Court's decision in Lindh v.
Murphy clarified the application of AEDPA's amendments to pending habeas corpus cases.
The case highlights the complexities of habeas corpus law and the importance of understanding the interplay between congressional intent and judicial interpretation of statutes.