Whether, on federal habeas review under 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d), a federal court may refuse to 'look through' to the last reasoned state court decision, as required by Wilson, and instead rely on Richter's 'could have supported' approach, when a state appellate court issues a reasoned denial of a claim and an unreasoned summary denial of another claim?

QUESTION PRESENTED THIS IS A CAPITAL CASE Two terms ago, this Court rejected the Eleventh Circuit’s approach to federal habeas review of state criminal adjudications under 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d). In Wilson v. Sellers, 138 8. Ct. 1188 (2018), this Court held that when confronted with a summary denial of relief from a state appellate court, § 2254(d) requires federal courts to “look through” to the last reasoned state court decision when one is available, to assess the reasonableness of a state court’s merits ruling. The Court found that the Eleventh Circuit was wrong to extend the standard of review set forth in Harrington v. Richter, 562 U.S. 86, 102 (2011), which precludes relief if any reasonable basis “could have supported” the state court’s decision, if that decision left undisturbed a prior reasoned state court opinion. Despite Wilson’s clear holding, the Eleventh Circuit refused in this case to “look through” to the reasoned state court merits ruling on counsel’s ineffectiveness, as both Petitioner and Respondent agreed was appropriate, and reverted again toa Richter review — the approach Wilson flatly rejected — because the state supreme court provided reasons on a completely separate ineffectiveness claim. This case thus once again demands this Court’s intervention to bring the circuit in line with the statutory mandate as clarified in Wilson. The question presented is this: Whether, on federal habeas review under 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d), a federal court may refuse to “look through” to the last reasoned state court decision, as required by Wilson, and instead rely on Richter’s “could have supported” approach, when a state appellate court issues a reasoned denial of a claim and an unreasoned summary denial of another claim? i