Does the Fourth Circuit's holding that new procedural rules cannot apply to any federal habeas proceeding, even where federal habeas is a petitioner's first and only opportunity for judicial review, conflict with this Court's precedents?

QUESTION PRESENTED Under Teague v. Lane, “new constitutional rules of criminal procedure will not be applicable to those cases which have become final before the new rules are announced.” 489 U.S. 288, 310 (1989). Below, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit announced that it would extend Teague’s nonretroactivity principle to procedures resulting in extrajudicial that no court has ever examined, let alone endorsed. No other circuit court has reached this extreme conclusion. With good reason. The Fourth Circuit’s decision is contrary to both Teague and this Court’s consistent recognition that extrajudicial detentions are different from detentions resulting from final criminal judgments and are subject to different rules. The question presented is: Does the Fourth Circuit’s holding that new procedural rules cannot apply to any federal habeas proceeding, even where federal habeas is a petitioner’s first and only opportunity for judicial review, conflict with this Court’s precedents? i