Whether the state courts adjudicated the merits of an ineffective assistance of counsel claim for purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d) when expressly citing controlling Supreme Court precedent to deny the claim on collateral review

28 U.S.C. § 2254(d) bars habeas relief unless the state court adjudication of the merits of a claim was contrary to or an unreasonable application of clearly established federal law. For claims of ineffective assistance of counsel, Strickland ov. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984), is the relevant clearly established federal law. The Washington courts expressly applied Strickland in this case, and the district court denied relief, finding the state court adjudication of the claim was reasonable. On appeal, the Ninth Circuit remanded for an evidentiary hearing, holding that the state courts never adjudicated the merits of the claim. The questions presented are: 1. Whether the state courts adjudicated the merits of the claim for purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d) when the state courts expressly cited to this Court’s controlling precedent to deny the claim on collateral review. 2. Whether the Ninth Circuit failed to comply with 28 U.S.C. § 2254(e)(2) when it authorized an evidentiary hearing without applying the requirements of that statute. ii PARTIES The Petitioners are Scott Speer, the Superintendent of the Stafford Creek Corrections Center, and Charlotte Headley, the Superintendent of the Washington Corrections Center for Women. Superintendent Speer is the successor in office to Ronald Haynes, who was formerly the custodian of Mr. Weller, and Superintendent Headley is the successor in office to Deborah Jo Wofford, who was formerly the custodian of Mrs. Weller. Superintendents Speer and Headley are substituted pursuant to Rule 35.3. The Respondents are Jeffrey Weller and Sandra Weller, below.