Thomas L. Carey, Warden v. Mathew Musladin
The Supreme Court ruled that the state court did not unreasonably apply clearly established federal law when it upheld the conviction.
549 U.S. 70 · No. 05-785 · 2006 term · Roberts Court
Decided Dec 11, 2006 · argued Oct 11, 2006
Criminal procedure · Extra-legal jury influences: miscellaneous
Majority opinion: Clarence Thomas
The voteMajority
9–09 in the majority, 0 in dissent
No dissent (9–0)
Vacated and remanded. Thomas L. Carey, Warden won.
What this ruling means
Vacated and remanded: the Supreme Court set aside the decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit, wiping it out without necessarily saying the result was wrong, and sent the case back for that court to decide again under the right legal standard.
Thomas L. Carey, Warden was the petitioner, the side that asked the Supreme Court to review the case. “Won” means the Court gave that side the result it asked for.
From the Supreme Court Database. A justice who agreed with the result but not the reasoning counts in the majority.
Summary
The opening of the case’s Wikipedia article: what the case was about and what the Court held.
Carey v. Musladin, 549 U.S. 70 (2006), is a United States Supreme Court case involving the standard for when a federal court can grant habeas corpus relief to overturn a criminal conviction based on the state court's misapplication of established federal law. At issue was whether a criminal defendant's constitutional right to a fair trial was violated when relatives of the alleged victim were permitted to sit in the courtroom as spectators during the trial, wearing buttons that displayed the victim's image.
The Supreme Court ruled that the state court did not unreasonably apply clearly established federal law when it upheld the conviction. The Court's prior rulings on when courtroom practices prejudiced the right to a fair trial were limited to state-sponsored conduct, and had consequently left it an open question regarding the conduct of spectators.
Data notes
The text is Wikipedia’s (CC BY-SA 4.0), matched to the case by its citation, docket number or name and year, and is not checked against the opinion. The site keeps the article’s opening section, ending on its last full sentence. The one-sentence summary under the title is the Decisions list’s: Wikipedia’s own ruling sentence, or, tagged “AI-written”, one Claude wrote from this opening.
How the justices voted
Each justice who took part, placed by their Martin–Quinn ideology score for the 2006 term. Filled: the 9 in the majority. Hollow: the 0 in dissent. Colour is the party of the president who appointed them.
Majority(9)
Clarence ThomasWrote the majority opinion
John StevensWrote a concurrence
David SouterWrote a concurrence
Anthony KennedyWrote a concurrence
Ruth GinsburgJoined the majority
Stephen BreyerJoined the majority
John RobertsJoined the majority
Samuel AlitoJoined the majority
Antonin ScaliaJoined the majority
Dissent(0)
- None.
Data notes
Each justice’s vote and what they wrote are from the justice-centered file of the Supreme Court Database. “Wrote a concurrence” means the justice sided with the majority and wrote separately; a justice who dissented in part is counted on the side they took overall. A justice who wrote nothing is listed as joining their side.
Positions are each justice’s Martin–Quinn score for the case’s term, the same scores as the Ideology page: negative is more liberal, positive more conservative. A score sums up a justice’s votes across the whole term, so it says where they usually sit, not why they voted as they did here. The median line is the Court’s median justice that term.
The parties
Who brought the case to the Court, who answered it, and how it got there.
- Petitioner
- Thomas L. Carey, WardenState (California)
- Respondent
- Mathew MusladinPerson accused, indicted, or suspected of crime
- Reached the Court by
- Certiorari (the Court chose to hear it)
Data notes
The names are the two sides of the case’s title. The description under each is the Supreme Court Database’s category for that party, in its own wording. The petitioner is the side that asked the Supreme Court to review the decision below. “Why it was taken” appears only when the majority opinion says lower courts disagreed or were unsure about the question; reasons that would fit any case (“to resolve the question presented”, “an important question”) are left out.
The law at issue
The law the Court was asked to apply, and the kind of power it used to decide.
- Decided by
- Federal common law
Data notes
The Supreme Court Database codes the main constitutional provision, statute or court rule each case turned on, and the basis of the decision: judicial review of a federal or state law, interpreting a statute, supervising the lower courts, and so on. A case can rest on more than one. “Overruled” counts only where the majority opinion says so.
Timeline
What happened at the Court and how the case got there, newest first.
- Dec 11, 2006DecidedDecided · Decided 9–0: vacated and remanded. Thomas L. Carey, Warden won.
- Oct 11, 2006ArguedArgued · Oral argument before the Court.
- Not datedTaken upTaken up · The Supreme Court agreed to hear the case (certiorari).
- Not datedCourt belowCourt below · Decided by the U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit: reversed and remanded, with a dissent.
- Not datedBeganBegan · The case began in the California Northern U.S. District Court.
Data notes
From the Supreme Court Database: the court the case began in, the court whose decision the Supreme Court reviewed and what that court did, how the case came to the Court, and the dates of argument and decision. The database does not date the steps in the lower courts. Court names are the database’s.
Other decisions on the same issue
10 other argued cases since 1946 on extra-legal jury influences: miscellaneous, newest first.
- Diaz v. United States144 S. Ct. 1727Jun 20, 2024 · 144 S. Ct. 1727Criminal procedure6–36–3 band
- United States v. Michael E. Gaudin515 U.S. 506Jun 19, 1995 · 515 U.S. 506Criminal procedure9–0Unanimous band
- David Riggins v. Nevada504 U.S. 127May 18, 1992 · 504 U.S. 127Criminal procedure7–27–2 band
- Holbrook, Superintendent, Massachusetts Correctional Institution, et al. v. Flynn475 U.S. 560Mar 25, 1986 · 475 U.S. 560Criminal procedure9–0Unanimous band
- Chandler et al. v. Florida449 U.S. 560Jan 26, 1981 · 449 U.S. 560Criminal procedure8–0Unanimous band
- Estes v. Texas381 U.S. 532Jun 7, 1965 · 381 U.S. 532Criminal procedure5–45–4 band
- Morford v. United States339 U.S. 258Apr 10, 1950 · 339 U.S. 258Criminal procedure8–0Unanimous band
- Dennis v. United States339 U.S. 162Mar 27, 1950 · 339 U.S. 162Criminal procedure5–27–2 band
- Frazier v. United States335 U.S. 497Dec 20, 1948 · 335 U.S. 497Criminal procedure5–45–4 band
- Fay v. New York332 U.S. 261Jun 23, 1947 · 332 U.S. 261Criminal procedure5–45–4 band
Data notes
Every other orally argued case with a clear vote, from the 1946 term on, that the Supreme Court Database files under the same issue as this one. The database gives each case one issue from a list of about 270 (abortion, search and seizure of vehicles, the death penalty, and so on), whatever law it turned on.
Official record
Read the full opinion on Justia, the argument audio on Oyez and Wikipedia. Case data from the Supreme Court Database, Version 2026 Release 01, through the 2025 term.