Brief of Amicus Curiae the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers Supporting Respondent.
Argument: The Questions presented do not subsume the issue of whether, under § 2254(d)(1), the state decision involved an “unreasonable application” of federal law. Section 2254(d)(1)’s “unreasonable application” clause reaches applications of clearly established federal law that are either too broad or too narrow. When a court analyzes a reasoned opinion under 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1), it asks whether the decision is objectively unreasonable. Federal court does not formulate hypothetical justifications for the state court outcome if the state decision provides a written account of its reasons. Harrington’s “fairminded disagreement” language does not resuscitate the “no reasonable jurist” standard rejected in Williams.