Whether a claim has been adjudicated on the merits by a state court under § 2254(d), where the defendant did not present a federal claim for relief and the clearly established federal law at the time would not have supported a federal claim?

At the time of Karl Roberts’s 1999 capital murder trial, this Court’s precedents permitted the execution of persons with intellectual disability , Penry v. Lynaugh , 492 U.S. 302 (1989), abrogated by Atkins v. Virginia, 536 U.S. 304 (2002) , while Arkansas law prohibited it , Ark. Code Ann. § 5 -4-618. Citing only the Arkansas statute , Roberts filed a one -page pretrial motion asking the court to make a “determination” as to his eligibility for the death penalty under state law , without arguing its merits or presenting any evidence. Following a brief hearing on Roberts’s competency , the court ruled without explanation or analysis that “the State may seek the death penalty [.]” App. 203a. In the decision below , the Eighth Circuit held that the 1999 death -eligibility order “constituted an adjudication of the Atkins claim ‘on the merits’ for purposes of AEDPA,” “even if that determination occurred prior to the Atkins decision.” App. 11a. The court of appeals denied relief solely on the basis of 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d) , finding that the state court’s one -sentence denial was a reasonable application of the as-yetunannounced rule of Atkin s. The question presented is: Whether a claim has been adjudicated on the merits by a state court under § 2254(d) , where the defendant did not present a federal claim for relief and the clearly established federal law at the time would not have supported a federal claim ? iii PARTIES The caption contains the names of all parties.