Whether the Fifth Circuit's interpretation of 'adjudication on the merits' under 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d) conflicts with Supreme Court precedent in Johnson v. Williams

Petitioner Anthony Medina seeks resolution of a long -standing circuit split over when a state court order qualifies as an adjudication “on the merits” under 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d). Under Johnson v. Williams , 568 U.S. 289 , 302 (2013) , an adjudication is “on the merits” if it was “ delivered after the court heard . . . and evaluated the evidence and parties’ substantive arguments .” The lower courts refused to apply Johnson , barring review of Medina’s substantial claims and arguments. In the Fifth Circuit, “[t]he term ‘adjudication on the merits’ … refers solely to whether the state court reached a conclusion as to the substantive matter of a claim, as opposed to disposing of the matter for procedural reasons .” Valdez v . Cockrell , 274 F.3d 941 , 950 (5th Cir. 2001). The term “on the merits ,” however, “does not speak to the quality of the process.” Id. Whether the state court heard or evaluated a petitioner’s evidence and substantive arguments before reaching its conclusion is irrelevant. Other circuits hold that “dispos[ing] of a claim without considering the facts supporting it is not a decision on the merits.” Wilson v. Workman , 577 F.3d 1284 (10th Cir. 2009) ( en banc ), abrogated by Lott v. Trammell , 705 F.3d 1167, 1213 (10th Cir. 2013) ; see also Valentino v. Clarke , 972 F.3d 560, 577 (4th Cir. 2020) (“[A] state court could not have properly adjudicated a claim if it decided on a materially incomplete record.” ) (internal quotations omitted). Medina was convicted of capital murder and sentenced to death. His trial counsel performed hardly any investigation during the six months between appointment and trial in this case —in part because they tried three other unrelated capital cases during this period. Medina ’s ensuing ineffective -assistance -of-counsel -claim landed before a trial court that, in every case, adopt s verbatim every individual finding of fact and conclusion of law submitted by the State. True to form, the state court failed to acknowl edge Medina’s filings and merely signed every proposed order submitted by the State . In federal court, Medina alleged his claim had not been “adjudicated on the merits .” The lower courts summarily rejected Medina’s arguments as without any basis in the law and denied his request for an appeal. This case therefore presents the following question s: 1. Is the Fifth Circuit’s refusal to apply this Court’s definition of an adjudication “on the merits” for purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d) debatable among jurists of reason? 2. Could reasonable jurists debate that trial counsel’s near total failure to investigate Medina’s case, and the ensuing consequences, violated Medina’s right to the effective assistance of counsel?