Guy Rook v. Donald Holbrook

discussion of federal authority is not required to find that a state court adjudicated a

petitioner’s federal claim “on the merits.” See Early v. Packer, 537 U.S. 3, 8 (2002)

(per curiam) (holding that § 2254(d) “does not require citation of [federal] cases—

indeed, it does not even require awareness of [federal] cases, so long as neither the

reasoning nor the result of the state-court decision contradicts them”). If, like here,

“the state-law rule subsumes the federal standard—that is, if it is at least as protective

as the federal standard—then the federal claim may be regarded as having been

adjudicated on the merits.” Johnson v. Williams, 568 U.S. 289, 299, 301 (2013)

(reversing grant of habeas and holding that “a state appellate court may regard its

discussion of the state precedent as sufficient to cover a claim based on the related

federal right”).

Although our “strong” presumption “that the federal claim was adjudicated

on the merits” is not “irrebuttable,” id. at 301–02, Rook fails to rebut the

presumption. Rook argues merely that the Washington Court of Appeals applied the

wrong standard. But this argument is more apt in addressing the next step of…