Adam Mortara, '01, Brought in by Eleventh Circuit as Habeas Expert

At issue is how federal courts examine habeas rulings by state courts, particularly when a state trial judge has ruled in a case and the state supreme court has affirmed that ruling without comment.

The Eleventh Circuit has in several cases said that in such a scenario federal judges should focus on the unexplained state supreme court decision. That means federal judges need only to identify a reasonable basis—a very deferential standard—for the state high court's ruling.

But both Wilson's attorneys and the AG's office disagree, apparently seeing strategic value in federal judges reviewing state trial courts' rulings in habeas cases. With the parties on the same side, the Eleventh Circuit brought in a lawyer who teaches habeas corpus at the University of Chicago to argue in defense of the Eleventh Circuit's recent approach.

[...]

Adam Mortara of Bartlit Beck Herman Palenchar & Scott in Chicago argued as amicus curiae in defense of the panel's approach. He has told the court that it is "offensive" to assume that a state supreme court adopts in its entirety a lower court decision that it affirms, especially given that AEDPA is based on principles of deference to state court decisions. On Tuesday, Mortara said that Ylst, the 1991 U.S. Supreme Court decision relied on by the parties, deals with a different statutory provision.