Jeff Premo, Superintendent, Oregon State Penitentiary, Petitioner v. Randy Joseph Moore
In a unanimous ruling, the court held that habeas relief may not be granted with respect to any claim that a state-court has found on the merits unless the state-court decision denying relief involves an "unreasonable application" of "clearly established federal law, as determined by" the Court.
562 U.S. 115 · No. 09-658 · 2010 term · Roberts Court
Decided Jan 19, 2011 · argued Oct 12, 2010
Civil rights · Indigents: inadequate representation by counsel
Majority opinion: Anthony Kennedy
The voteMajority
8–08 in the majority, 0 in dissent
No dissent (9–0)
Reversed and remanded. Jeff Premo, Superintendent, Oregon State Penitentiary, Petitioner won.
What this ruling means
Reversed and remanded: the Supreme Court overturned the decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit and sent the case back to that court for further proceedings that follow the Supreme Court’s ruling.
Jeff Premo, Superintendent, Oregon State Penitentiary, Petitioner 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.
Premo v. Moore, 562 U.S. 115 (2011), is a United States Supreme Court case involving the right of individuals to federal habeas corpus relief on state-law claims. In a unanimous ruling, the court held that habeas relief may not be granted with respect to any claim that a state-court has found on the merits unless the state-court decision denying relief involves an "unreasonable application" of "clearly established federal law, as determined by" the Court.
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 2010 term. Filled: the 8 in the majority. Hollow: the 0 in dissent. Colour is the party of the president who appointed them.
Majority(8)
Anthony KennedyWrote the majority opinion
Ruth GinsburgWrote a concurrence
Sonia SotomayorJoined the majority
Stephen BreyerJoined the majority
John RobertsJoined the majority
Samuel AlitoJoined the majority
Antonin ScaliaJoined the majority
Clarence ThomasJoined the majority
Dissent(0)
- None.
Did not take part: Elena Kagan.
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
- Jeff Premo, Superintendent, Oregon State Penitentiary, PetitionerState (Oregon)
- Respondent
- Randy Joseph MoorePrisoner, inmate of penal institution
- 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.
- Provision
- Fourth Amendment
- Kind of law
- Constitutional Amendment
- Decided by
- Judicial review (state level)
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.
- Jan 19, 2011DecidedDecided · Decided 8–0: reversed and remanded. Jeff Premo, Superintendent, Oregon State Penitentiary, Petitioner won.
- Oct 12, 2010ArguedArgued · 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 Oregon 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
14 other argued cases since 1946 on indigents: inadequate representation by counsel, newest first.
- Weaver v. Massachusetts137 S. Ct. 1899Jun 22, 2017 · 137 S. Ct. 1899Civil rights7–27–2 band
- Carlos Trevino, Petitioner v. Rick Thaler, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Division569 U.S. 413May 28, 2013 · 569 U.S. 413Civil rights5–45–4 band
- Missouri, Petitioner v. Galin E. Frye566 U.S. 134Mar 21, 2012 · 566 U.S. 134Civil rights5–45–4 band
- Blaine Lafler, Petitioner v. Anthony Cooper566 U.S. 156Mar 21, 2012 · 566 U.S. 156Civil rights5–45–4 band
- Luis Mariano Martinez, Petitioner v. Charles L. Ryan, Director, Arizona Department of Corrections566 U.S. 1Mar 20, 2012 · 566 U.S. 1Civil rights7–27–2 band
- James Walker, Warden, et al., Petitioners v. Charles W. Martin562 U.S. 307Feb 23, 2011 · 562 U.S. 307Civil rights9–0Unanimous band
- Albert Holland v. Florida560 U.S. 631Jun 14, 2010 · 560 U.S. 631Civil rights7–27–2 band
- Michael A. Knowles, Warden v. Alexandre Mirzayance556 U.S. 111Mar 24, 2009 · 556 U.S. 111Civil rights9–0Unanimous band
- Penson, Steven A. v. Ohio488 U.S. 75Nov 29, 1988 · 488 U.S. 75Civil rights8–18–1 band
- McCoy v. Court of Appeals of Wisconsin, District 1486 U.S. 429Jun 6, 1988 · 486 U.S. 429Civil rights5–36–3 band
- Strickland, Superintendent, Florida State Prison, et al. v. WashingtonLandmark · Other rights regarding counsel466 U.S. 668May 14, 1984 · 466 U.S. 668Civil rightsLandmark · Other rights regarding counsel8–18–1 band
- Wood et al. v. Georgia450 U.S. 261Mar 4, 1981 · 450 U.S. 261Civil rights6–36–3 band
- Holloway et al. v. Arkansas435 U.S. 475Apr 3, 1978 · 435 U.S. 475Civil rights6–36–3 band
- Johnson v. Avery, Commissioner of Correction, et al.393 U.S. 483Feb 24, 1969 · 393 U.S. 483Civil rights7–27–2 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.