Whether a federal habeas court may deny relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d) based on hypothetical reasoning not actually used by the state court, and whether 'justice' is a valid standard for denying habeas relief

No question identified. : APPLICATION FOR AN EXTENSION OF TIME Pursuant to Rule 13.5 of the Rules of this Court, Applicant Karu Gene White respectfully requests a 59-day extension of time within which to file a petition for a writ of certiorari, up to and including Friday, September 26, 2025. JUDGMENT FOR WHICH REVIEW IS SOUGHT The judgment for which review is sought is White v. Plappert, No. 21-5958 (6th Cir. Mar. 14, 2025), reported at 131 F.4th 465 (attached as Exhibit 1). The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit denied Applicant’s petition for rehearing en banc on April 30, 2025 (attached as Exhibit 2). JURISDICTION 28 U.S.C. § 1254(1) provides this Court with jurisdiction over any timely filed petition for certiorari in this case. Under Rules 13.1 and 13.3 of the Rules of this Court, a petition for a writ of certiorari is due to be filed on or before July 29, 2025. In accordance with Rule 13.5, Applicant is filing this application more than 10 days before the deadline for the petition for a writ of certiorari. REASONS JUSTIFYING AN EXTENSION OF TIME In this capital case, a divided panel of the Sixth Circuit denied Applicant habeas relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2254, over Judge Stranch’s forceful dissent. This case presents several substantial issues of law. First, the decision below held that the underlying state court decision was not contrary to clearly established federal law under 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d) because the state court “correctly cited and quoted” this Court’s general standard for claims in Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984)—even though the state court’s reasoning rested on more specific misstatements of law that, as the panel majority recognized, “r[a]n afoul of Supreme Court precedent” governing claims. Op. 15-16; see Wiggins v. Smith, 539 U.S. 510, 527 (2003); Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S. 362, 391-398 (2000). Second, the panel majority construed the deference due the state court’s decision under 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d) to require that a federal habeas court deny relief if the federal court is able to hypothesize any colorable reasoning that the state court could have relied upon (but did not) to deny relief—even if the state court’s actual reasoning is contrary to, or an unreasonable application of, federal law. Op. 11, 23. That conclusion runs afoul of this Court’s precedents, see Wilson v. Sellers, 584 U.S. 122, 125 (2018), and deepens a split among the federal courts of appeals, compare, e.g., Hudson v. Kelly, 94 F.4th 195, 200-01 (1st Cir. 2024), with Pye v. Warden, 50 F.4th 1025, 103641 (11th Cir. 2022). Third, the judgment below concluded that an otherwise meritorious habeas petition may be denied if the federal court concludes that the petitioner has not shown that “justice” requires relief. Op. 9 (citing 28 U.S.C. § 2243). That conclusion contradicts 150 years of this Court’s habeas jurisprudence, which holds that a habeas petitioner is entitled to relief when he demonstrates that his conviction or sentence is unlawful. E.g., Cunningham v. Neagle, 135 U.S. 1, 41 (1890); In re Medley, 134 U.S. 160, 161-62, 173 (1890); Ex parte Nielsen, 131 U.S. 176, 184 (1889). The Sixth Circuit’s decision invites lower courts in that circuit to deny habeas relief based on vague and undefined notions of “justice” without regard to the merits of the petitioners’ legal claims. Applicant respectfully requests a 59-day extension of time within which to file a petition for a writ of certiorari seeking review of the complex issues raised by the Sixth Circuit’s decision in this case, up to and including Friday, September 26, 2025. The reasons for Applicant’s request are as follows: 1. Munger, Tolles & Olson LLP began assisting with Applicant’s representation in April 2025, after the Sixth Circuit issued its decision. An extension of time is necessary to permit counsel to familiarize themselves with the unusually extensive record in this case and to prepare and file the petition for certiorari. 2. The exte