Whether a federal habeas petitioner seeking relief on the basis of a violation of the Public Trial Clause can demonstrate an 'unreasonable application of clearly established Federal law' within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1) in the absence of a Supreme Court precedent involving analytically indistinguishable facts

QUESTION PRESENTED Under 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1), a state prisoner is entitled to habeas corpus relief when the last reasoned statecourt decision was either “contrary to” or “involved an unreasonable application of” this Court’s precedents. A state prisoner is entitled to relief under to the “unreasonable application” prong of this disjunctive test if “the state court identifies the correct governing legal rule from this Court’s cases but unreasonably applies it to the facts of the particular state prisoner’s case.” Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S. 362, 407 (2000). The lower courts are in disarray over the proper implementation of the standard. Some have required precisely on-point decisions from this Court, while others have not. This case squarely implicates the split: The Second Circuit reversed a grant of habeas relief with respect to a shocking courtroom closure during a criminal trial, not because the state court’s application of this Court’s general Sixth Amendment principles was facially reasonable (it was not), but because this Court has not previously held that the Public Trial Clause was violated on identical or nearly identical facts. Other circuits have eschewed any such requirement and would have affirmed the district court’s grant of habeas relief. * OR OK The question presented is whether a federal habeas petitioner seeking relief on the basis of a violation of the Public Trial Clause can demonstrate an “unreasonable application of clearly established Federal law” within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1) in the absence of a Supreme Court precedent involving analytically indistinguishable facts. ii RELATED CASES The proceedings identified below are directly related to this case in this Court: Bail proceedings: e People ex rel. Kuby v. Merritt, 96 A.D.3d 607 (N.Y. App. Div. 2012); docket no. 110374/11, 7550; judgment entered June 21, 2012; further appeal denied, 976 N.E.2d 252 (N.Y. 2012) e People ex rel. Kuby v. Agro, 111 A.D.3d 516 (N.Y. App. Div. 2013); docket no. 11092 101131/13, 621/10; judgment entered November 19, 2013; further appeal denied, 5 N.E.3d 591 (N.Y. 2014) e Jordan v. Bailey, 985 F. Supp. 2d 431 (S.D.N.Y. 2013); docket no. 13-cv-7651; judgment entered December 2, 2013 Criminal judgment and direct appeals: e People v. Jordan (N.Y. 8. Ct.), docket no. 621-2010, judgment entered November 5, 2014 e People v. Jordan, 145 A.D.3d 584 (N.Y. App. Div. 2016); docket no. 2524, 621/10; judgment entered December 22, 2016; further appeal denied, 84 N.E.3d 974 (N.Y. 2017) e Jordan v. New York, 138 S. Ct. 481 (2017), docket no. 17-487; denial of petition for writ of certiorari entered November 27, 2017 Federal habeas proceedings: e Jordan v. Lamanna, 2020 WL 6647282 (S.D.N.Y.); docket no. 18-civ-10868; order granting writ of habeas corpus entered September 25, 2020 e Jordan v. Lamanna, 33 F.4th 144 (2d Cir. 2022); docket no. 20-3317; judgment entered May 5, 2022