Teague v. Lane

1989 United States Supreme Court case
Teague v. Lane
Argued October 4, 1988
Decided February 22, 1989
Full case nameFrank Teague v. Michael P. Lane (Director of Illinois Department of Corrections) and Michael O'Leary (Warden of Stateville Correctional Center)
Citations489 U.S. 288 (more)
109 S. Ct. 1060; 103 L. Ed. 2d 334
Case history
PriorHabeas corpus petition denied by District Court; reversed, 779 F.2d 1332 (7th Cir. 1985); affirmed on rehearing en banc, 820 F.2d 832 (7th Cir. 1987).
SubsequentNone
Holding
In habeas corpus proceedings, only a limited set of important substantive or procedural rights will be enforced retroactively or announced prospectively.
Court membership
Chief Justice
William Rehnquist
Associate Justices
William J. Brennan Jr. · Byron White
Thurgood Marshall · Harry Blackmun
John P. Stevens · Sandra Day O'Connor
Antonin Scalia · Anthony Kennedy
Case opinions
MajorityO'Connor, joined by Rehnquist, White, Scalia and Kennedy (Parts I, II, III); Blackmun, Stevens (Part II only)
PluralityO'Connor, joined by Rehnquist, Scalia, Kennedy (Parts IV and V)
ConcurrenceWhite (in part in the judgment)
ConcurrenceBlackmun (in part and in the judgment)
ConcurrenceStevens (in part and in the judgment), joined by Blackmun (Part I only)
DissentBrennan, joined by Marshall
Overruled by
Edwards v. Vannoy (2021) (in part)

Teague v. Lane, 489 U.S. 288 (1989), was a United States Supreme Court case dealing with the application of newly announced rules of law in habeas corpus proceedings. This case addresses the Federal Court's threshold standard of deciding whether Constitutional claims will be heard. Application of the "Teague test" at the most basic level limits habeas corpus.

Background

The appeal was from a black defendant who was convicted by an all white jury in Illinois in a state court located in Cook County. The prosecutor had used all 10 of his peremptory challenges to exclude African American jurors but claimed he was trying to get a balance of men and women on the jury.

Opinion of the Court

The majority held that the actions of the prosecutor did not follow contemporary criminal procedure but that the Batson challenge principle should not be applied retroactively.

See also

External links

  • Text of Teague v. Lane, 489 U.S. 288 (1989) is available from: Justia  Library of Congress  Oyez (oral argument audio) 
  • v
  • t
  • e
U.S. Supreme Court Article I case law
Enumeration Clause of Section II
Qualifications Clauses of Sections II and III
Elections Clause of Section IV
Origination Clause of Section VII
Presentment Clause of Section VII
Commerce Clause of Section VIII
Dormant Commerce Clause
Others
Coinage Clause of Section VIII
Legal Tender Cases
Copyright Act of 1790
Patent Act of 1793
Patent infringement case law
Patentability case law
Copyright Act of 1831
Copyright Act of 1870
Sherman Antitrust Act of 1890
International Copyright Act of 1891
Copyright Act of 1909
Patent misuse case law
Clayton Antitrust Act of 1914
Lanham Act
Copyright Act of 1976
Other copyright cases
Other patent cases
Other trademark cases
Habeas corpus Suspension Clause of Section IX
No Bills of Attainder or Ex post facto Laws Clause of Section IX
Contract Clause of Section X
Legal Tender Cases
Others
Compact Clause of Section X
  • v
  • t
  • e
United States equal protection and criminal procedure case law
Discrimination in jury selection
History
Racial exclusion in venire
Fair cross-section in venire
Peremptory challenges
  • *Glasser interpreted the Impartial Jury Clause of the Sixth Amendment. **Thiel and Edmonson were civil cases.


Stub icon

This article related to the Supreme Court of the United States is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by expanding it.

  • v
  • t
  • e