Whether a state court may resolve a federal constitutional claim by treating an AEDPA habeas decision of the Supreme Court as a ruling on the merits when the Court explicitly refrained from deciding the underlying constitutional question

QUESTIONS PRESENTED The Florida Supreme Court held, contrary to the plain language of this Court, and contrary to the holdings of the high courts of other states, that this Court ruled on the merits of the underlying Eighth Amendment claim in Virginia v. LeBlanc, 37 S.Ct. 1726 (2017). The questions presented are: 1. May a state court resolve a federal constitutional claim by treating an AEDPA habeas decision of this Court as a ruling on the merits when this Court explicitly refrained from deciding the underlying constitutional question? 2. Does a state parole process in which officials are not required to factor maturity, rehabilitation, and the mitigating effects of youth into the decision whether to release a juvenile offender serving life in prison comply with the Eighth Amendment as interpreted in Graham v. Florida, 560 U.S. 48 (2010)? i