Is the Fourth the New Ninth?

This morning, the Supreme Court summarily reversed a decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit in Klein v. Martin, concluding the Fourth Circuit failed to comply with the Anti-Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (AEDPA) when (in an unpublished opinion), it awarded a new trial for Charles Brandon Martin. The decision was 8-1, as Justice Jackson dissented without issuing an opinion.

The Court’s per curiam opinion in Klein explains the basis for the reversal:

Under the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (AEDPA), strict standards govern the grant of federal habeas relief to prisoners convicted in state court. Faithful application of those standards sometimes puts federal district courts and courts of appeals in the disagreeable position of having to deny relief in cases they would have analyzed differently if they had been in the shoes of the relevant state court. But federal courts are dutybound to comply with AEDPA, and we have granted summary relief when the lower courts have departed from the role AEDPA assigns. See, e.g., Clark v. Sweeney, 607 U. S. ___ (2025) (per curiam); Dunn v. Reeves, 594 U. S. 731 (2021) (per curiam); Mays v. Hines, 592 U. S. 385 (2021) (per curiam); Virginia v. LeBlanc, 582 U. S. 91 (2017) (per curiam); White v. Wheeler, 577 U. S. 73 (2015) (per curiam).

This is such a case. Respondent Charles Brandon Martin was convicted in a Maryland court for the attempted murder of one of his girlfriends, Jodi Torok. The evidence against him was strong, his conviction was affirmed on appeal, and an appellate court held in a state postconviction proceeding that the State’s failure to disclose certain  impeachment evidence that was favorable under Brady v. Maryland, 373 U. S. 83 (1963), did not warrant a new trial because there was no “reasonable probability that the result of [the] trial would have been different” had the evidence been turned over. App. to Pet. for Cert. 115a (App.); see Kyles v. Whitley, 514 U. S. 419, 434 (1995) (the “touchstone of materiality is a ‘reasonable probability’ of a different result”). Because that decision neither was “contrary to” nor “involved an unreasonable application” of “clearly established Federal law,” AEDPA required the denial of Martin’s federal habeas petition. 28 U. S. C. §2254(d)(1). Yet the Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the award of a new trial based on reasoning that departed from what AEDPA prescribes. We therefore grant the State’s petition for a writ of certiorari and reverse.

This is the second time this term the justices have summarily reversed a habeas decision from the Fourth Circuit. It summarily reversed in Clark v. Sweeney in November.  As I noted at the time, there were reasons to think that the Fourth Circuit would be replacing the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit as the “new Ninth.” Two summary reversals in habeas cases in a single term would seem to confirm the hypothesis, particularly as they come on the heels of the Fourth Circuit’s 0-8 record from last term.

While the jurisprudential orientation of the Fourth Circuit may be at odds with that of the Supreme Court, there are also signs that the Fourth Circuit’s judges are making an effort to follow the Supreme Court’s lead. See, for instance, the recent unanimous panel opinion in The Sustainability Institute v. Trump, in which the court vacated district court injunctions barring the Trump Administration from terminating or suspending environmental and agricultural grants to nonprofit organizations. Judge Rushing’s opinion for the panel in Sustainability Institute was joined by Judges Niemeyer and Heytens.  (Judge Heytens had also joined the opinion below in Klein, while Judge Niemeyer dissented.)

Is Clark a sign of more reversals to come? Or does Sustainability Institute indicate the Fourth Circuit will come into line? Stay tuned.