Teague v. Lane

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Teague v. Lane
Argued October 4, 1988
Decided February 22, 1989
Full case nameFrank Teague v. Michael P. Lane (Director of Illinois Department of Corrections) and Michael O'Leary (Warden of Stateville Correctional Center)
Citations489 U.S. 288 (more)
109 S. Ct. 1060; 103 L. Ed. 2d 334
Case history
PriorHabeas corpus petition denied by District Court; reversed, 779 F.2d 1332 (7th Cir. 1985); affirmed on rehearing en banc, 820 F.2d 832 (7th Cir. 1987).
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
MajorityO'Connor, joined by Rehnquist, White, Scalia and Kennedy (Parts I, II, III); Blackmun, Stevens (Part II only)
PluralityO'Connor, joined by Rehnquist, Scalia, Kennedy (Parts IV and V)
ConcurrenceWhite (in part in the judgment)
ConcurrenceBlackmun (in part and in the judgment)
ConcurrenceStevens (in part and in the judgment), joined by Blackmun (Part I only)
DissentBrennan, 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 a black defendant who was convicted by an all white jury in Illinois in a 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[edit]

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.

See also[edit]

External links[edit]