# Slack v. McDaniel

> Supreme Court of the United States · April 26, 2000 · 529 U.S. 473

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9433938

## Case

- **Full name:** SLACK v. McDANIEL, WARDEN, Et Al.
- **Court:** Supreme Court of the United States
- **Decided:** April 26, 2000
- **Citations:** 529 U.S. 473; 13 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. S 257; 120 S. Ct. 1595; 146 L. Ed. 2d 542; 2000 U.S. LEXIS 3000
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Stevens
- **Judges:** Kennedy, Rehnquist, O'Con-Nor, Scaua, Thomas, Ginsburg, Stevens, O'Connor, Souter, Breyer, Scalia
- **Cited by:** 41,983 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9433938

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- holding that "[w]hen the district court denies a habeas petition on procedural grounds without reaching the prisoner’s underlying constitutional claim, a COA should issue when the petitioner shows, at least, that jurists of reason would find it debat- able whether the petition…
- stating that when “the district court denies a habeas petition on procedural grounds without reaching the prisoner's underlying constitutional claim,” a COA will not be issued unless the prisoner can show, “that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the -2- petitio…
- holding that “[wjhen the district court denies a habeas petition on procedural grounds without reaching the prisoner’s underlying constitutional claim, a COA should issue when the petitioner shows, at least, that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the petition s…
- holding that a certificate of appealability may be granted only if applicant made a “substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right,” i.e., a showing that “reasonable jurists could debate whether . . . the petition should have been resolved in a different manner o…
- explaining that, to obtain a certificate of appealability, a "habeas prisoner must make a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right, . . . includ[ing] showing that reasonable jurists could debate whether (or, for that matter, agree that) the petition should h…

## Opinion text

Justice Stevens,
with whom Justice Souter and Justice Breyer join, concurring in part and concurring in the judgment.
With respect to the issue resolved in Part II of the Court’s opinion, I agree with the Courts of Appeals that have held that the pre-AEDPA version of 28 U. S. C. § 2253 governs the right to appeal with respect to an appeal noticed after the effective date of AEDPA in a habeas corpus proceeding commenced prior to that date. See Fuller v. Roe, 182 F. 3d 699, 702 (CA9 1999) (per curiam); Crowell v. Walsh, 151 F. 3d 1050 , 1051-1052 (CADC 1998); Tejeda v. Dubois, 142 F. 3d 18, 22, n. 4 (CA1 1998); Berrios v. United States, 126 F. 3d 430, 431, n. 2 (CA2 1997); United States v. Kunzman, 125 F. 3d 1363, 1364, n. 2 (CA10 1997); United States v. Skandier, 125 F. 3d 178, 179-182 (CA3 1997); Hardwick v. Singletary, 122 F. 3d 935, 936 (per curiam), vacated in part on other grounds, 126 F. 3d 1312 (CA11 1997) (per curiam); Arredondo v. United States, 120 F. 3d 639, 640 (CA6 1997); United States v. Carter, 117 F. 3d 262, 264 (CA5 1997) (per curiam); but see Tiedeman v. Benson, 122 F. 3d 518, 520-521 (CA8 1997).
I do, however, join the balance of the Court’s opinion and its judgment.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9433938. Public record. Not legal advice.