This article is missing information about the background and circumstances of the case. Please expand the article to include this information. Further details may exist on the talk page.(April 2015)
United States Supreme Court case
Teague v. Lane
Supreme Court of the United States
Argued October 4, 1988 Decided February 22, 1989
Full case name
Frank Teague v. Michael P. Lane (Director of Illinois Department of Corrections) and Michael O'Leary (Warden of Stateville Correctional Center)
Habeas corpus petition denied by District Court; reversed, 779 F.2d1332 (7th Cir. 1985); affirmed on rehearing en banc, 820 F.2d832 (7th Cir. 1987).
Subsequent
None
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
Majority
O'Connor, joined by Rehnquist, White, Scalia and Kennedy (Parts I, II, III); Blackmun, Stevens (Part II only)
Plurality
O'Connor, joined by Rehnquist, Scalia, Kennedy (Parts IV and V)
Concurrence
White (in part in the judgment)
Concurrence
Blackmun (in part and in the judgment)
Concurrence
Stevens (in part and in the judgment), joined by Blackmun (Part I only)
Dissent
Brennan, 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.
The appeal was from black defendant who was convicted by an all white jury in an Illinois in 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 should not be applied retroactively.
