Any thoughts on SCOTUS's decision today in Danforth v. Minnesota? The majority -- authored by Stevens and including the rather strange bedfellows of Scalia and Thomas -- held that states are not bound by federal opinions of when to apply new constitutional rules retroactively. So although SCOTUS held Crawford doesn't apply retroactively, each of the fifty states can make their own decision about whether to apply it or not.

I think Roberts's dissent made the most sense. States are allowed to craft their own laws and apply whatever retroactivity requirements they want. But when they're talking about a right under the US Constitution, SCOTUS should be the final decision-maker.

It was a 7-2 decision, with only Roberts and Kennedy dissenting, so I'm not quite sure what to make of it.

Isn't the majority merely saying that federal constitutional rights are the threshold below which the state's protection cannot drop, but if the states desire, they may provide greater protection. Thus, Teague does not bind the states and, under any particular state's law, Crawford may provide relief on a post-conviction writ.

We can live with that, so long as the CCA will adopt and apply Teague for state law purposes.



JAS

[This message was edited by JAS on 02-20-08 at .]

I had pretty much the same reaction at first glance, but my opinion changed as I read through the opinions. The basic idea of "floor not ceiling" is fine. If a state wanted to pass a law giving a more lenient retroactivity standard, that's completely within its rights. My problem with this case is that the state court is saying federal law means X not Y. It's as if the CCA issued an opinion saying the federal constitution requires a police officer to give Miranda warnings for non-custodial interrogation. Yes, we could pass a law saying just that, but if we don't have a state law and are just interpreting the federal constitution, we should be bound by what SCOTUS says.

And I agree it's only a problem for us if the CCA decides not to use Teague, but someone's going to have to go through pointless litigation on the first case they have where it comes up.