source: Caselaw Access Project

author: Justice O’Connor Justice Scalia,

license: Public Domain

text:
    CITY OF CUYAHOGA FALLS, OHIO, et al. v. BUCKEYE COMMUNITY HOPE FOUNDATION et al.
    No. 01-1269.
    Argued January 21, 2003
    Decided March 25, 2003

      O’Connor, J., delivered the opinion for a unanimous Court. Scaua, J., filed a concurring opinion, in which Thomas, J., joined, post, p. 200.

      Glen D. Nager argued the cause for petitioners. With him on the briefs were Virgil Arrington, Jr., Michael A. Garvin, and Michael S. Fried.

      David B. Salmons argued the cause pro hoc vice for the United States as amicus curiae urging reversal. With him on the brief were Solicitor General Olson, Assistant Attorney General Boyd, Deputy Solicitor General Clement, Mark L. Gross, and Teresa Kwong.

      Edward G. Kramer argued the cause for respondents. With him on the brief were Diane E. Citrino, Kenneth Ko-walski, and Michael P. Seng.

      Briefs of amici curiae urging reversal were filed for the City of Athens, Ohio, et al. by Barry M. Byron, John E. Gotherman, and Garry E. Hunter; and for the International Municipal Lawyers Association et al. by Henry W. Underhill, Jr., Charles M. Hinton, Jr., and Brad Neighbor.

      Briefs of amici curiae urging affirmance were filed for the Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law et al. by Barbara Arnwine, Thomas J. Henderson, Cheryl L. Ziegler, Eva Jefferson Paterson, Javier N. Maldonado, and Michael Churchill; for the National Association of Home Builders by Thomas Jon Ward; for the National Fair Housing Alliance et al. by Joseph R. Guerra, Thomas Healy, John P. Reiman, Meera

        Trehan, and Robert G. Schwemm; and for the National Multi Housing Council et al. by Leo G. Rydzewski and Ciarme Nardi Riddle.

        John H. Findley and Meriem L. Hubbard filed a brief for the Pacific Legal Foundation et al. as amici curiae.

   Justice O’Connor

delivered the opinion of the Court.

In 1995, the city of Cuyahoga Falls, Ohio (hereinafter City), submitted to voters a facially neutral referendum petition that called for the repeal of a municipal housing ordinance authorizing construction of a low-income housing complex. The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit found genuine issues of material fact with regard to whether the City violated the Equal Protection Clause, the Due Process Clause, and the Fair Housing Act, 82 Stat. 81, as amended, 42 U. S. C. §3601 et seq., by placing the petition on the ballot. We granted certiorari to determine whether the Sixth Circuit erred in ruling that respondents’ suit against the City could proceed to trial.

hH

A

In June 1995, respondents Buckeye Community Hope Foundation, a nonprofit corporation dedicated to developing affordable housing through the use of low-income tax credits, and others (hereinafter Buckeye or respondents), purchased land zoned for apartments in Cuyahoga Falls, Ohio. In February 1996, Buckeye submitted a site plan for Pleasant Meadows, a multifamily, low-income housing complex, to the city planning commission. Residents of Cuyahoga Falls immediately expressed opposition to the proposal. See 263 F. 3d 627, 630 (CA6 2001). After respondents agreed to various conditions, including that respondents build an earthen wall surrounded by a fence on one side of the complex, the commission unanimously approved the site plan and submitted it to the city council for final authorization.

As the final approval process unfolded, public opposition to the plan resurfaced and eventually coalesced into a referendum petition drive. See Cuyahoga Falls City Charter, Art. 9, § 2, App. 14 (giving voters “the power to approve or reject at the polls any ordinance or resolution passed by the Council” within 30 days of the ordinance’s passage). At city council meetings and independent gatherings, some of which the mayor attended to express his personal opposition to the site plan, citizens of Cuyahoga Falls voiced various concerns: that the development would cause crime and drug activity to escalate, that families with children would move in, and that the complex would attract a population similar to the one on Prange Drive, the City’s only African-American neighborhood. See, e. g., 263 F. 3d, at 636-637; App. 98, 139, 191; Tr. 182-185, 270, 316. Nevertheless, because the plan met all municipal zoning requirements, the city council approved the project on April 1, 1996, through City Ordinance No. 48-1996.

On April 29, a group of citizens filed a formal petition with the City requesting that the ordinance be repealed or submitted to a popular vote. Pursuant to the charter, which provides that an ordinance challenged by a petition “shall [not] go into effect until approved by a majority” of voters, the filing stayed the implementation of the site plan. Art. 9, § 2, App. 15. On April 30, respondents sought an injunction against the petition in state court, arguing that the Ohio Constitution does not authorize popular referendums on administrative matters. On May 31, the Court of Common Pleas denied the injunction. Civ. No. 96-05-1701 (Summit County), App. to Pet. for Cert. 255a. A month later, respondents nonetheless requested building permits from the City in order to begin construction. On June 26, the city engineer rejected the request after being advised by the city law director that the permits “could not be issued because the site plan ordinance ‘does not take effect’ due to the petitions.” 263 F. 3d, at 633.

In November 1996, the voters of Cuyahoga Falls passed the referendum, thus repealing Ordinance No. 48-1996. In a joint stipulation, however, the parties agreed that the results of the election would not be certified until the litigation over the referendum was resolved. See Stipulation and Jointly Agreed upon Preliminary Injunction Order in No. 5:96 CV 1458 (ND Ohio, Nov. 25, 1996). In July 1998, the Ohio Supreme Court, having initially concluded that the referendum was proper, reversed itself and declared the referendum unconstitutional. 82 Ohio St. 3d 539, 697 N. E. 2d 181 (holding that the Ohio State Constitution authorizes referendums only in relation to legislative acts, not administrative acts, such as the site-plan ordinance). The City subsequently issued the building permits, and Buckeye commenced construction of Pleasant Meadows.

B

In July 1996, with the state-court litigation still pending, respondents filed suit in federal court against the City and several city officials, seeking an injunction ordering the City to issue the building permits, as well as declaratory and monetary relief. Buckeye alleged that “in allowing a site plan approval ordinance to be submitted to the electors of Cuya-hoga Falls through a referendum and in rejecting [its] application for building permits,” the City and its officials violated the Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment, as well as the Fair Housing Act, 42 U. S. C. § 3601. Complaint in No. 5:96 CV 1458 ¶ 1 (ND Ohio, July 5, 1996) (hereinafter Complaint). In June 1997, the District Court dismissed the ease against the mayor in his individual capacity but denied the City’s motion for summary judgment on the equal protection and due process claims, concluding that genuine issues of material fact existed as to both claims. 970 F. Supp. 1289, 1308 (ND Ohio 1997). After the Ohio Supreme Court declared the referendum invalid in 1998, thus reducing respondents’ action to a claim for damages for the delay in construction, the City and its officials again moved for summary judgment. On November 19, 1999, the District Court granted the motion on all counts. Civ. No. 5:96 CV 1458, App. to Pet. for Cert. 35a.

The Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reversed. As to respondents’ equal protection claim, the court concluded that they had produced sufficient evidence to go to trial on the allegation that the City, by allowing the referendum petition to stay the implementation of the site plan, gave effect to the racial bias reflected in the public’s opposition to the project. See 263 F. 3d, at 639. The court then held that even if respondents failed to prove intentional discrimination, they stated a valid claim under the Fair Housing Act on the theory that the City’s actions had a disparate impact based on race and family status. See id., at 640. Finally, the court concluded that a genuine issue of material fact existed as to whether the City, by denying respondents the benefit of the lawfully approved site plan, engaged in arbitrary and irrational government conduct in violation of substantive due process. Id., at 644. We granted certiorari, 536 U. S. 938 (2002), and now reverse the constitutional holdings and vacate the Fair Housing Act holding.

HH H

Respondents allege that by submitting the petition to the voters and refusing to issue building permits while the petition was pending, the City and its officials violated the Equal Protection Clause. See Complaint ¶ 41. Petitioners claim that the Sixth Circuit went astray by ascribing the motivations of a handful of citizens supportive of the referendum to the City. We agree with petitioners that respondents have failed to present sufficient evidence of an equal protection violation to survive summary judgment.

We have made clear that “[pjroof of racially discriminatory intent or purpose is required” to show a violation of the Equal Protection Clause. Arlington Heights v. Metropolitan Housing Development Corp., 429 U. S. 252, 265 (1977) (citing Washington v. Davis, 426 U. S. 229 (1976)). In deciding the equal protection question, the Sixth Circuit erred in relying on cases in which we have subjected enacted, discretionary measures to equal protection scrutiny and treated decisionmakers’ statements as evidence of such intent. See 263 F. 3d, at 634-635 (citing Cleburne v. Cleburne Living Center, Inc., 473 U. S. 432, 448 (1985); Arlington Heights v. Metropolitan Housing Development Corp., supra, at 268; and Hunter v. Erickson, 393 U. S. 385, 392 (1969)). Because respondents claim injury from the referendum petitioning process and not from the referendum itself — which never went into effect — these cases are inapposite. Ultimately, neither of the official acts respondents challenge reflects the intent required to support equal protection liability.

First, in submitting the referendum petition to the voters, the City acted pursuant to the requirements of its charter, which sets out a facially neutral petitioning procedure. See Art. 9, §2. By placing the referendum on the ballot, the City did not enact the referendum and therefore cannot be said to have given effect to voters’ allegedly discriminatory motives for supporting the petition. Similarly, the city engineer, in refusing to issue the building permits while the referendum was still pending, performed a nondiscretionary, ministerial act. He acted in response to the city law director’s instruction that the building permits “could not . . . issue” because the charter prohibited a challenged site-plan ordinance from going into effect until “approved by a majority of those voting thereon,” App. 16. See 263 F. 3d, at 633. Respondents point to no evidence suggesting that these official acts were themselves motivated by racial animus. Respondents do not, for example, offer evidence that the City followed the obligations set forth in its charter because of the referendum’s discriminatory purpose, or that city officials would have selectively refused to follow standard charter procedures in a different case.

Instead, to establish discriminatory intent, respondents and the Sixth Circuit both rely heavily on evidence of allegedly discriminatory voter sentiment. See id., at 635-637. But statements made by private individuals in the course of a citizen-driven petition drive, while sometimes relevant to equal protection analysis, see supra, at 194, do not, in and of themselves, constitute state action for the purposes of the Fourteenth Amendment. Cf. Blum v. Yaretsky, 457 U. S. 991, 1002-1003 (1982) (“‘[T]he principle has become firmly embedded in our constitutional law that the action inhibited by the first section of the Fourteenth Amendment is only such action as may fairly be said to be that of the States’ ” (quoting Shelley v. Kraemer, 334 U. S. 1, 13 (1948))). Moreover, respondents put forth no evidence that the “private motives [that] triggered” the referendum drive “can fairly be attributed to the State.” Blum v. Yaretsky, supra, at 1004.

In fact, by adhering to charter procedures, city officials enabled public debate on the referendum to take place, thus advancing significant First Amendment interests. In assessing the referendum as a “basic instrument of democratic government,” Eastlake v. Forest City Enterprises, Inc., 426 U. S. 668, 679 (1976), we have observed that “[provisions for referendums demonstrate devotion to democracy, not to bias, discrimination, or prejudice,” James v. Valtierra, 402 U. S. 137, 141 (1971). And our well established First Amendment admonition that “government may not prohibit the expression of an idea simply because society finds the idea itself offensive or disagreeable,” Texas v. Johnson, 491 U. S. 397, 414 (1989), dovetails with the notion that all citizens, regardless of the content of their ideas, have the right to petition their government. Cf. Meyer v. Grant, 486 U. S. 414, 421-422 (1988) (describing the circulation of an initiative petition as “‘core political speech’”); Police Dept. of Chicago v. Mosley, 408 U. S. 92, 96 (1972) (“[Government may not grant the use of a forum to people whose views it finds acceptable, but deny use to those wishing to express less favored or more controversial views”). Again, statements made by decision-makers or referendum sponsors during deliberation over a referendum may constitute relevant evidence of discriminatory intent in a challenge to an ultimately enacted initiative. See, e. g., Washington v. Seattle School Dist. No. 1, 458 U. S. 457, 471 (1982) (considering statements of initiative sponsors in subjecting enacted referendum to equal protection scrutiny); Arlington Heights v. Metropolitan Housing Development Corp., 429 U. S., at 268. But respondents do not challenge an enacted referendum.

In their brief to this Court, respondents offer an alternative theory of equal protection liability: that city officials, including the mayor, acted in concert with private citizens to prevent Pleasant Meadows from being built because of the race and family status of its likely residents. See Brief for Respondents 12-26; Tr. of Oral Arg. 33-34, 36-40, 43. Respondents allege, among other things, that the city law director prompted disgruntled voters to file the petition, that the city council intentionally delayed its deliberations to thwart the development, and that the mayor stoked the public opposition. See Brief for Respondents 17. Not only did the courts below not directly address this theory of liability, but respondents also appear to have disavowed this claim at oral argument, focusing instead on the denial of the permits. See Tr. of Oral Arg. 37-38.

What is more, respondents never articulated a cognizable legal claim on these grounds. Respondents fail to show that city officials exercised any power over voters’ decision-making during the drive, much less the kind of “coercive power” either “overt or covert” that would render the voters’ actions and statements, for all intents and purposes, state action. Blum v. Yaretsky, 457 U. S., at 1004. Nor, as noted above, do respondents show that the voters’ sentiments can be attributed in any way to the state actors against which it has brought suit. See ibid. Indeed, in finding a genuine issue of material fact with regard to intent, the Sixth Circuit relied almost entirely on apparently independent statements by private citizens. See 263 F. 3d, at 635-637. And in dismissing the claim against the mayor in his individual capacity, the District Court found no evidence that he orchestrated the referendum. See 970 F. Supp., at 1321. Respondents thus fail to present an equal protection claim sufficient to survive summary judgment.

III

In evaluating respondents’ substantive due process claim, the Sixth Circuit found, as a threshold matter, that respondents had a legitimate claim of entitlement to the building permits, and therefore a property interest in those permits, in light of the city council’s approval of the site plan. See 263 F. 3d, at 642. The court then held that respondents had presented sufficient evidence to survive summary judgment on their claim that the City engaged in arbitrary conduct by denying respondents the benefit of the plan. Id., at 644. Both in their complaint and before this Court, respondents contend that the City violated substantive due process, not only for the reason articulated by the Sixth Circuit, but also on the grounds that the City’s submission of an administrative land-use determination to the charter’s referendum procedures constituted per se arbitrary conduct. See Complaint ¶ ¶ 39, 43; Brief for Respondents 32-49. We find no merit in either claim.

We need not decide whether respondents possessed a property interest in the building permits, because the city engineer’s refusal to issue the permits while the petition was pending in no sense constituted egregious or arbitrary government conduct. See County of Sacramento v. Lewis, 523 U. S. 833, 846 (1998) (noting that in our evaluations of “abusive executive action,” we have held that “only the most egregious official conduct can be said to be ‘arbitrary in the constitutional sense’”). In light of the charter’s provision that “[n]o such ordinance [challenged by a petition] shall go into effect until approved by a majority of those voting thereon,” Art. 9, §2, App. 15, the law director’s instruction to the engineer to not issue the permits represented an eminently rational directive. Indeed, the site plan, by law, could not be implemented until the voters passed on the referendum.

Respondents’ second theory of liability has no basis in our precedent. As a matter of federal constitutional law, we have rejected the distinction that respondents ask us to draw, and that the Ohio Supreme Court drew as a matter of state law, between legislative and administrative referendums. In Eastlake v. Forest City Enterprises, Inc., 426 U. S., at 672, 675, we made clear that because all power stems from the people, “[a] referendum cannot... be characterized as a delegation of power,” unlawful unless accompanied by “discernible standards.” The people retain the power to govern through referendum “‘with respect to any matter, legislative or administrative, within the realm of local affairs.’” Id., at 674, n. 9. Cf. James v. Valtierra, 402 U. S. 137. Though the “substantive result” of a referendum may be invalid if it is “arbitrary and capricious,” Eastlake v. Forest City Enterprises, supra, at 676, respondents do not challenge the referendum itself. The subjection of the site-plan ordinance to the City’s referendum process, regardless of whether that ordinance reflected an administrative or legislative decision, did not constitute per se arbitrary government conduct in violation of due process.

IV

For the reasons detailed above, we reverse the Sixth Circuit’s judgment with regard to respondents’ equal protection and substantive due process claims. The Sixth Circuit also held that respondents’ disparate impact claim under the Fair Housing Act could proceed to trial, 263 F. 3d, at 641, but respondents have now abandoned the claim. See Brief for Respondents 31. We therefore vacate the Sixth Circuit’s disparate impact holding and remand with instructions to dismiss, with prejudice, the relevant portion of the complaint. See Deakins v. Monaghan, 484 U. S. 193, 200 (1988).

The judgment of the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit is, accordingly, reversed in part and vacated in part, and the case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

It is so ordered.

Justice Scalia,

with whom Justice Thomas joins, concurring.

I join the Court’s opinion, including Part III, which concludes that respondents’ assertions of arbitrary government conduct must be rejected. I write separately to observe that, even if there had been arbitrary government conduct, that would not have established the substantive-due-process violation that respondents claim.

It would be absurd to think that all “arbitrary and capricious” government action violates substantive due process— even, for example, the arbitrary and capricious cancellation of a public employee’s parking privileges. The judicially created substantive component of the Due Process Clause protects, we have said, certain “fundamental liberty interests] ” from deprivation by the government, unless the infringement is narrowly tailored to serve a compelling state interest. Washington v. Glucksberg, 521 U. S. 702, 721 (1997). Freedom from delay in receiving a building permit is not among these “fundamental liberty interests.” To the contrary, the Takings Clause allows government confiscation of private property so long as it is taken for a public use and just compensation is paid; mere regulation of land use need not be “narrowly tailored” to effectuate a “compelling state interest.” Those who claim “arbitrary” deprivations of nonfundamental liberty interests must look to the Equal Protection Clause, and Graham v. Connor, 490 U. S. 386, 395 (1989), precludes the use of “‘substantive due process’ ” analysis when a more specific constitutional provision governs.

As for respondents’ assertion that referendums may not be used to decide whether low-income housing may be built on their land: that is not a substantive-due-process claim, but rather a challenge to the 'procedures by which respondents were deprived of their alleged liberty interest in building on their land. There is nothing procedurally defective about conditioning the right to build low-income housing on the outcome of a popular referendum, cf. James v. Valtierra, 402 U. S. 137 (1971), and the delay in issuing the permit was prescribed by a duly enacted provision of the Cuyahoga Falls City Charter (Art. 9, § 2), which surely constitutes “due process of law,” see Connecticut Dept. of Public Safety v. Doe, ante, p. 8 (Scalia, J., concurring).

With these observations, I join the Court’s opinion.


author: Justice Thomas Justice O’Connor, Justice Souter,

text:
    WOODFORD, WARDEN v. GARCEAU
    No. 01-1862.
    Argued January 21, 2003
    Decided March 25, 2003

      Thomas, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Rehnquist, C. J., and Stevens, Scalia, and Kennedy, JJ., joined. O’Connor, J., filed an opinion concurring in the judgment, post, p. 210. Souter, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which Ginsburg and Breyer, JJ., joined, post, p. 213.

      Janis S. McLean, Supervising Deputy Attorney General of California, argued the cause for petitioner. With her on the briefs were Bill Lockyer, Attorney General of California, Robert R. Anderson, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Jo Graves, Senior Assistant Attorney General, and Clayton S. Tanaka, Deputy Attorney General.

      Lynne S. Coffin argued the cause for respondent. With her on the brief were Andrew S. Love and Denise Kendall.

        Kent S. Scheidegger and Charles L. Hobson filed a brief for the Criminal Justice Legal Foundation as amicus curiae urging reversal.

        Leon Friedman, Jeffrey L. Kirchmeier, and Joshua L. Dratel filed a brief for the Association of the Bar of the City of New York as amicus curiae urging affirmance.

   Justice Thomas

delivered the opinion of the Court.

In Lindh v. Murphy, 521 U. S. 320 (1997), we held that amendments made to chapter 153 of Title 28 of the United States Code by the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (AEDPA), 110 Stat. 1214, do not apply to cases pending in federal court on April 24, 1996 — AEDPA’s effective date. In this case we consider when a capital ha-beas case becomes “pending” for purposes of the rule announced in Lindh.

I

Respondent Robert Garceau brutally killed his girlfriend Maureen Bautista and her 14-year-old son, Telesforo Bau-tista. He was convicted of first-degree murder and sentenced to death. The California Supreme Court affirmed respondent’s conviction and sentence, People v. Garceau, 6 Cal. 4th 140, 862 P. 2d 664 (1993), and denied on the merits his petition for state postconviction relief. We denied certio-rari. 513 U. S. 848 (1994).

On May 12,1995, respondent filed a motion for the appointment of federal habeas counsel and an application for a stay of execution in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California. The District Court promptly issued a 45-day stay of execution. On June 26, 1995, the District Court appointed counsel and extended the stay of execution for another 120 days. On August 1, 1995, the State filed a motion to vacate the stay, in part because respondent had failed to file a “specification of nonfrivolous issues,” as required by local court rules. Brief for Respondent 2. Respondent cured that defect, and, on October 13, 1995, the District Court denied the State’s motion and ordered that the habeas petition be filed within nine months. Respondent filed his application for habeas relief on July 2, 1996.

Although respondent’s habeas application was filed after AEDPA’s effective date, the District Court, following Circuit precedent, concluded that the application was not subject to AEDPA. See App. to Pet. for Cert. 31-32 (citing Lindh, supra; Calderon v. United States Dist. Ct. for the Central Dist. of Cal., 163 F. 3d 530, 540 (CA9 1998) (en banc), cert. denied, 526 U. S. 1060 (1999)). On the merits, however, the District Court ruled that respondent was not entitled to ha-beas relief. The Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed. Like the District Court, the Ninth Circuit concluded AEDPA does not apply to respondent’s application. 275 F. 3d 769, 772, n. 1 (2001). Unlike the District Court, however, the Ninth Circuit granted habeas relief for reasons that are not relevant to our discussion here. Id., at 777-778. We granted certiorari. 536 U. S. 990 (2001).

II

As already noted, we held in Lindh that the new provisions of chapter 153 of Title 28 do not apply to cases pending as of the date AEDPA became effective. Lindh, however, had no occasion to elaborate on the precise time when a case becomes “pending” for purposes of chapter 153 because in that case petitioner’s habeas application had been filed prior to AEDPA’s effective date. See Lindh, supra, at 323 (noting that petitioner filed his federal habeas application on July 9, 1992). Since Lindh, the Courts of Appeals have divided on the question whether AEDPA applies to a habeas application filed after AEDPA’s effective date if the applicant sought the appointment of counsel or a stay of execution (or both) prior to that date. Five Courts of Appeals have ruled that AEDPA applies, see, e. g., Isaacs v. Head, 300 F. 3d 1232, 1245-1246 (CA11 2002); Moore v. Gibson, 195 F. 3d 1152, 1160-1163 (CA10 1999); Gosier v. Welborn, 175 F. 3d 504, 506 (CA7 1999); Williams v. Coyle, 167 F. 3d 1036, 1037-1040 (CA6 1999); Williams v. Cain, 125 F. 3d 269, 273-274 (CA5 1997), while the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has held it does not, Calderon, supra, at 539-540. For the reasons stated below, we agree with the majority of the Courts of Appeals.

Congress enacted AEDPA to reduce delays in the execution of state and federal criminal sentences, particularly in capital cases, see Williams v. Taylor, 529 U. S. 362, 386 (2000) (opinion of Stevens, J.) (“Congress wished to curb delays, to prevent ‘retrials’ on federal habeas, and to give effect to state convictions to the extent possible under law”); see also id., at 404 (majority opinion), and “to further the principles of comity, finality, and federalism,” Williams v. Taylor, 529 U. S. 420, 436 (2000). One of the methods Congress used to advance these objectives was the adoption of an amended 28 U. S. C. § 2254(d). Williams, 529 U. S., at 404 (“It cannot be disputed that Congress viewed § 2254(d)(1) as an important means by which its goals for habeas reform would be achieved”). As we have explained before, § 2254(d) places “new constraint^] on the power of a federal habeas court to grant a state prisoner’s application for a writ of ha-beas corpus with respect to claims adjudicated on the merits in state court.” Id., at 412. Our cases make clear that AEDPA in general and § 2254(d) in particular focus in large measure on revising the standards used for evaluating the merits of a habeas application. See id., at 412-413; Lindh, supra, at 329 (noting that “amended § 2254(d) . . . governs standards affecting entitlement to relief”); see also Early v. Packer, 537 U. S. 3 (2002) (per curiam) (applying AEDPA’s standards); Woodford v. Visciotti, 537 U. S. 19 (2002) (per curiam) (same).

Because of AEDPA’s heavy emphasis on the standards governing the review of the merits of a habeas application, we interpret the rule announced in Lindh in view of that emphasis, as have the majority of the Courts of Appeals. See, e. g., Holman v. Gilmore, 126 F. 3d 876, 880 (CA7 1997) (“[T]he motion for counsel is not itself a petition, because it does not call for (or even permit) a decision on the merits. And it is ‘the merits’ that the amended § 2254(d)(1) is all about”); Isaacs, supra, at 1245 (same); Coyle, supra, at 1040 (same). Thus, whether AEDPA applies to a state prisoner turns on what was before a federal court on the date AEDPA became effective. If, on that date, the state prisoner had before a federal court an application for habeas relief seeking an adjudication on the merits of the petitioner’s claims, then amended § 2254(d) does not apply. Otherwise, an application filed after AEDPA’s effective date should be reviewed under AEDPA, even if other filings by that same applicant — such as, for example, a request for the appointment of counsel or a motion for a stay of execution — were presented to a federal court prior to AEDPA’s effective date.

A review of the amended chapter 153 supports our conclusion. For instance, § 2254(e)(1) provides that, “[i]n a proceeding instituted by an application for a writ of habeas corpus by a person in custody pursuant to the judgment of a State court, a determination of a factual issue made by a State court shall be presumed to be correct.” (Emphasis added.) Under the Ninth Circuit’s view, the presumption established in § 2254(e)(1) would rarely apply in a capital case. If, as the Ninth Circuit held, a capital habeas case can be commenced (and, therefore, may become pending for purposes of Lindh) with the filing of a request for the appointment of counsel or a motion for a stay, then § 2254(e)(1), which by its terms applies only to a proceeding “instituted” by “an application for a writ of habeas corpus,” would not apply to any capital prisoners whose first filing in federal court is a request for the appointment of counsel or a motion for a stay. This would make § 2254(e)(1) applicable only to those capital prisoners who did not need counsel and did not seek a stay. AEDPA’s text, however, contains no indication that § 2254(e)(1) was intended to have such a limited scope. Nor is it reasonable to believe that Congress meant for a capital prisoner to avoid the application of the stringent requirements of § 2254(e)(1) simply by filing a request for counsel or a motion for a stay before filing an actual application for habeas relief. Other provisions of chapter 153 likewise - support our view. See, e. g., 28 U. S. C. § 2241(d) (indicating that the power to grant a writ is not triggered except by “application for a writ of habeas corpus”); § 2244(a) (providing that federal judges are not required to “entertain” a second or successive “application for a writ of habeas corpus” except as provided for by statute).

Finally, our conclusion is reinforced by the procedural rules governing §2254 cases. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 3 explains that “[a] civil action is commenced by filing a complaint.” The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure apply in the context of habeas suits to the extent that they are not inconsistent with the Habeas Corpus Rules. See 28 U. S. C. §2254 Rule 11; Fed. Rule Civ. Proc. 81(a)(2); Pitchess v. Davis, 421 U. S. 482, 489 (1975) (per curiam). Nothing in the Habeas Corpus Rules contradicts Rule 3. The logical conclusion, therefore, is that a habeas suit begins with the filing of an application for habeas corpus relief — the equivalent of a complaint in an ordinary civil case.

H-I H-l 1 — 1

Respondent asks us to determine the scope of the rule announced in Lindh by looking at some of the provisions of chapter 154 of Title 28. But our task in this case is to apply Lindh to an action under chapter 153; thus, the precise phrasing of provisions in chapter 154 is inapposite to our inquiry here.

Moreover, respondent’s argument that our holding in McFarland v. Scott, 512 U. S. 849 (1994), should inform our decision here is unpersuasive. To begin with, McFarland involved the interpretation of §2251, not §2254, which is at issue here. And, as the Courts of Appeals have recognized, see Isaacs, 300 F. 3d, at 1242-1246 (collecting and discussing authorities), the Court’s ruling in McFarland must be understood in light of the Court’s concern to protect the right to counsel contained in 21 U. S. C. § 848(q)(4)(B). McFarland, 512 U. S., at 855 (“This interpretation is the only one that gives meaning to the statute as a practical matter”); id., at 856 (“Requiring an indigent capital petitioner to proceed without counsel in order to obtain counsel thus would expose him to the substantial risk that his habeas claims never would be heard on the merits. Congress legislated against this legal backdrop in adopting § 848(q)(4)(B), and we safely assume that it did not intend for the express requirement of counsel to be defeated in this manner”); id., at 857 (“Even if the District Court had granted McFarland’s motion for appointment of counsel and had found an attorney to represent him, this appointment would have been meaningless unless McFarland’s execution also was stayed”). Thus, McFarland cannot carry the day for respondent.

Similarly, the Ninth Circuit’s and respondent’s reliance on Hohn v. United States, 524 U. S. 236 (1998), is misplaced. In Hohn, we considered whether this Court has jurisdiction to review a court of appeals’ denial of a certificate of appealability (COA). To answer that question we focused on the text of 28 U. S. C. § 1254, which “confines our jurisdiction to ‘[c]ases in’ the courts of appeals.” Hohn, supra, at 241 (citing Nixon v. Fitzgerald, 457 U. S. 731, 741-742 (1982)). Although we concluded that an application for a COA constituted a case within the meaning of § 1254, we did not provide an all-purpose definition of the term “case.” Thus, while Hohn might support an argument that respondent’s request for appointment of counsel and his motion for a stay of execution began a “case” that could be reviewed on appeal, see, e. g., Gosier, 175 F. 3d, at 506 (“[A] request for counsel is a ‘case’ in the sense that it is subject to appellate review (and, if need be, review by the Supreme Court)”), it says nothing about whether a request for counsel or motion for a stay suffices to create a “case” that is “pending” within the meaning of the Lindh rule.

•fc 'K

In sum, we hold that, for purposes of applying the rule announced in Lindh, a case does not become “pending” until an actual application for habeas corpus relief is filed in federal court. Because respondent’s federal habeas corpus application was not filed until after AEDPA’s effective date, that application is subject to AEDPA’s amendments. Accordingly, we reverse the judgment of the Court of Appeals and remand the case for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

It is so ordered.

Justice O’Connor,

concurring in the judgment.

The Court today holds that the post-Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (AEDPA) version of 28 U. S. C. §2254 applies to respondent Robert Garceau’s habeas corpus application because Garceau did not file his application until after AEDPA’s effective date. I agree with that holding. I concur only in the judgment, however, because in my view the Court’s reasoning is broader than necessary.

The Court states that if “the state prisoner had before a federal court an application for habeas relief seeking an adjudication on the merits of the petitioner’s claims, then amended § 2254(d) does not apply.” Ante, at 207. Under the facts of this case, however, the Court may have misapplied its own rule. As the Court concedes, ante, at 204-205, the District Court had a pre-AEDPA filing setting forth the merits of Garceau’s claims. After Garceau filed a motion for the appointment of counsel, motion for a stay, and motion for leave to file a habeas application, the District Court stayed Garceau’s execution. Over the objection of the State, the District Court held that Garceau had identified nonfrivolous issues so that a stay of the execution was appropriate. It is difficult to see how the “merits” were not in front of the District Court at that time, which was well before AEDPA’s effective date.

In addition, the Court does not adequately distinguish McFarland v. Scott, 512 U. S. 849 (1994). Although I dissented from that case, I also recognize that “the doctrine of stare decisis is most compelling” when the Court confronts “a pure question of statutory construction.” Hilton v. South Carolina Public Railways Comm’n, 502 U. S. 197, 205 (1991). The Court here, however, appears to adopt the reasoning of the dissent in McFarland. Compare ante, at 208 (“Finally, our conclusion is reinforced by the procedural rules governing §2254 cases”), with McFarland, supra, at 862 (O’Connor, J., dissenting in relevant part) (“The rules governing § 2254 cases confirm this conclusion”). I see no need to question the underpinnings of McFarland in this case, and I accept the holding of McFarland that an application for a writ of habeas corpus is not necessary to trigger the beginning of a habeas proceeding. See, e. g., 28 U. S. C. §§2251, 2262.

I agree, however, with the Court’s conclusion that the post-AEDPA version of § 2254 is applicable to Garceau’s case. The text of § 2254 itself provides the answer. Both before and after AEDPA, §2254 has concerned only applications for a writ of habeas corpus. Compare § 2254(a) (“The Supreme Court, a Justice thereof, a circuit judge, or a district court shall entertain an application for a writ of habeas corpus ...” (emphasis added)) with 28 U. S. C. § 2254(a) (19.94 ed.) (same). Indeed, only the filing of an application for a writ of habeas corpus triggered the former version of § 2254(d). See 28 U. S. C. § 2254(d) (1994 ed.) (“In any proceeding instituted in a Federal court by an application for a writ of habeas corpus . ..”). Thus, although Garceau’s pre-application filings trigger a habeas corpus proceeding sufficient to permit the District Court to grant a stay under 28 U. S. C. § 2251 and to engage in other activity related to the case, these filings do not answer whether the pre- or post-AEDPA version of § 2254(d) applies here. Because §2254 has always spoken in terms of “applications,” a case is pending for § 2254 purposes only when the prisoner files an application for a writ of habeas corpus.

I acknowledge that some language in Lindh v. Murphy, 521 U. S. 320 (1997), and in McFarland, supra, can be read to say that if a habeas case is pending before AEDPA, none of AEDPA’s amendments apply — including the amendments to § 2254. But these statements do not answer the question in this case. If §2254 applied to habeas proceedings other than applications for a writ of habeas corpus, the answer might well be different. Compare 28 U. S. C. § 2251 (a judge, “before whom a habeas corpus proceeding is pending, may .. . stay any proceeding”) with § 2254(e)(1) (“In a proceeding instituted by an application for a writ of habeas corpus ...”). But as the Court correctly points out, ante, at 207-208, § 2254 applies only once a prisoner has filed “an application for a writ of habeas corpus.” § 2254(a). See also §§ 2254(b)(1), 2254(b)(2), 2254(d), 2254(e)(1).

It does not follow from our case law, nor does it follow from the text of § 2254 or any other habeas provision, that a habeas applicant can receive the benefit of the pre-AEDPA version of § 2254 when § 2254 itself cannot be triggered until the prisoner files an application for a writ of habeas corpus. A “case” simply could not have existed for purposes of § 2254 until Garceau filed the application itself. Finally, Garceau has no reliance interest here. The pre-AEDPA version of § 2254(d) specifically acknowledged that a habeas applicant was entitled to the then-existing less-restrictive version of § 2254(d) only when the prisoner “instituted” a “proceeding ... by an application for a writ of habeas corpus.” 28 U. S. C. § 2254(d) (1994 ed.).

Because 28 U. S. C. § 2254 is triggered only when a prisoner files an application for a writ of habeas corpus, and because Garceau filed his petition after AEDPA’s date, I concur in the judgment of the Court that the post-AEDPA version of § 2254(d) governs his claim..

Justice Souter,

with whom Justice Ginsburg and Justice Breyer join, dissenting.

In modifying 28 U. S. C. § 2254, the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (AEDPA), 110 Stat. 1214, did not specifically identify the state habeas cases that the amended statute would govern, except in certain capital cases subject to special rules not applicable here. Lindh v. Murphy, 521 U. S. 320, 326 (1997), held that in the statute’s general application, the amendments cover only cases filed after AEDPA’s effective date. Here we have to take the further step of deciding when a case is filed for purposes of the Lindh rule.

The majority focuses on 28 U. S. C. §2254 alone, which is fair enough where a habeas petitioner’s first encounter with the district court occurs in filing the petition for habeas relief itself. But this is not such a case. Garceau first entered the federal court to seek appointment of habeas counsel under 21 U. S. C. § 848(q)(4)(B), and his subsequently appointed lawyer then petitioned under 28 U. S. C. § 2251 for a stay of execution while preparing a habeas petition. I therefore think this case calls for the principle that related statutory provisions are to be read together, see, e. g., Coit Independence Joint Venture v. FSLIC, 489 U. S. 561, 573 (1989) (citing Brown v. Duchesne, 19 How. 183, 194 (1857)). AEBPA’s amendment of §2254 ought to be understood in light of §2251.

When counsel, appointed to prepare and litigate a habeas petition under § 2254, seeks a stay of execution under § 2251, the district court will at some point condition the continuation of any stay on its assessment of the substantiality of the issues counsel expects to raise in the petition yet to be filed, a judgment that will call for some consideration of standards for federal relief in cases governed by §2254. When a district court’s exercise of jurisdiction for habeas purposes occurs during the transition from an earlier to a later version of §2254, it makes sense to hold that the version to be applied in a given case is the one in effect when the habeas court first takes account of § 2254 standards for habeas relief. A case should thus be considered filed for purposes of the Lindh rule by the time the habeas court makes a determination that takes standards for federal relief into consideration.

When the District Court took its initial look at anticipated claims in this case, for example, it was clear that the habeas petition might well be filed before the effective date of the amendment to § 2254; it was thus appropriate for the District Court to consider the possible merit of the claim in light of the earlier, existing law. As a consequence, it would be reasonable to apply that law throughout. There would not be much point, after all, in relying on existing law to judge the merits of a stay, if counsel could not rely on existing law in preparing the case. Otherwise the court could be staying a case that might be hopeless under the later, more restrictive, law; or conversely, would be forcing counsel to stint on responsible preparation, in order to assure that a petition subject to the earlier law be filed before AEDPA’s general effective date. I would therefore hold that the earlier version of §2254 should apply throughout a habeas proceeding if the habeas court that issued a § 2251 stay took its preliminary look at the prospects for habeas success prior to AEDPA’s effective date.

In this case, that first look occurred six months before the amendment’s effective date, and I would accordingly hold the pre-AEDPA law applicable here. I respectfully dissent.

       Justice O’Connor contends that we may have misapplied our test because a filing labeled “Specification of Non-Frivolous Issues” placed the merits of respondent’s claims before the District Court before AEDPA’s effective date. Post, at 211 (opinion concurring in judgment). That is simply not so. Respondent’s “Specification of Non-Frivolous Issues” plainly stated that “[biased on a preliminary review of case materials, counsel believes the following federal constitutional issues exist in this case and are among the issues that may be raised on [Garceau’s] behalf in a petition for habeas corpus.” App. to Brief in Opposition 227 (emphasis added). The clear import of this language is that the filing itself did not seek any relief on the merits or place the merits of respondent’s claims before the District Court for decision. Rather, the document simply alerted the District Court as to some of the possible claims that might be raised by respondent in the future. Indeed, the habeas corpus application respondent eventually filed contained numerous issues that were not mentioned in the “Specification of Non-Frivolous Issues.”

       In view of the question on which we granted certiorari, we decline petitioner’s request to rule on the merits of respondent's habeas application.