In determining whether a claim has been fairly presented to, and 'adjudicated on the merits' by, the state courts for § 2254(d) purposes, must a federal habeas court examine and compare not only the legal theory but also the factual support presented first in state court and then in federal court?

QUESTION PRESENTED In Cullen v. Pinholster, this Court acknowledged, without resolving, that in some cases questions will arise as to “where to draw the line between new [habeas] claims and claims adjudicated on the merits” in state court. 563 U.S. 170, 186 n.10 (2011). At that time, lower federal courts were drawing the line based on the longstanding fair presentation doctrine: where a claim for relief was not fairly presented, both in law and fact, the claim was not adjudicated on the merits in the state courts and was (typically) procedurally defaulted. However, in the wake of Martinez v. Ryan, 563 U.S. 232 (2011), confusion has emerged among the lower courts on how to apply the fair presentation doctrine in cases, such as Moore’s, where state post-conviction counsel raised a legal claim but offered no evidentiary support for it, and federal habeas counsel then pursued the same legal theory but offered the missing evidentiary support. At least two members of this Court have recognized the salience of this issue, observing that “[a] claim without any evidence to support it might as well be no claim at all.” Gallow v. Cooper, 570 U.S. 933, 933 (2013) (statement of Breyer, J., joined by Sotomayor, J., respecting the denial of the petition for writ of certiorari). This case squarely presents this question and the lower federal courts need this Court’s guidance as to whether, for Martinez purposes, a claim raised in state collateral proceedings but not supported by competent evidence is a different claim from one raised on federal habeas with substantial factual support. The question presented is: In determining whether a claim has been fairly presented to, and “adjudicated on the merits” by, the state courts for § 2254(d) purposes, must a federal habeas court examine and compare not only the legal theory but also the factual support presented first in state court and then in federal court? i