On this page
Under Teague v. Lane, a new Supreme Court rule about criminal procedure — how a case is tried — usually does not help people whose convictions are already final. A new substantive rule — one that changes what conduct is a crime or what punishment is allowed — does apply to old cases.
In Teague v. Lane, 489 U.S. 288 (1989), the Supreme Court held that new rules of criminal procedure generally do not apply on collateral review (like a § 2255 motion). In short, “an old rule applies both on direct and collateral review, but a new rule is generally applicable only to cases that are still on direct review.” Whorton v. Bockting, 549 U.S. 406, 416 (2007).
Outcomes vary. A past result does not predict or guarantee the outcome of any other case.
Does Teague block substantive rules?
No. Teague applies only to procedural rules. New substantive rules generally apply retroactively. Substantive rules include decisions that “narrow the scope of a criminal statute by interpreting its terms,” and constitutional decisions that place particular conduct or persons beyond the government’s power to punish. Schriro v. Summerlin, 542 U.S. 348, 351-52 (2004). They also include rules that “prohibit[] a certain category of punishment for a class of defendants because of their status or offense.” Beard v. Banks, 542 U.S. 406, 416-17 (2004). Older cases described these categories as an “exception” to Teague. See Graham v. Collins, 506 U.S. 461, 477 (1993). Today the Court treats them as substantive rules that Teague does not cover. Welch v. United States, 578 U.S. 120 (2016).
For example, the Supreme Court held that its decision striking down the residual clause of the Armed Career Criminal Act was substantive and applies to old cases. Welch v. United States, 578 U.S. 120 (2016).
The reason is simple. If conduct cannot be punished at all, it would be unjust to keep people imprisoned for it.
Why don’t new procedural rules apply to old cases?
The Court’s view is that new procedural rules “merely raise the possibility that someone convicted with use of the invalidated procedure might have been acquitted otherwise.” Schriro, 542 U.S. at 352. You may disagree, but that is the law.
Is there still a “watershed rule” exception?
No. Teague once allowed a narrow exception for “watershed” rules of criminal procedure. The Supreme Court never found a rule that qualified, and in 2021 it said the exception “retains no vitality.” Edwards v. Vannoy, 593 U.S. 255 (2021). New procedural rules now do not apply retroactively on federal collateral review.
How can you avoid a Teague problem?
If your conviction became final (the appeal ended or the time to appeal passed) before the decision you want to rely on, you have two main arguments:
- The rule is not “new.” A rule is not new if it was dictated by precedent that existed when your conviction became final. Courts “survey the legal landscape” as of that date. Lambrix v. Singletary, 520 U.S. 518, 527-28 (1997).
- The rule is substantive, not procedural. If it narrows a criminal statute or bars punishment for certain conduct or a class of people, Teague does not apply.
If you are thinking about a § 2255 motion based on a new Supreme Court decision, book a consultation with Brandon Sample to talk through whether it applies to your case. The one-year clock for a new right usually starts on the date of the decision. 28 U.S.C. § 2255(f)(3).
Common questions
What is the Teague doctrine?
It is the rule from Teague v. Lane, 489 U.S. 288 (1989), that new rules of criminal procedure generally do not apply to cases already final when the rule was announced. It keeps people from using a new procedural rule to attack a final conviction in habeas proceedings.
Does Teague apply to new substantive rules?
No. Teague applies only to new rules of criminal procedure. New substantive rules generally apply to old cases.
How can I avoid the Teague doctrine?
Argue that the rule is not actually “new,” because it was dictated by existing precedent when your conviction became final, or that the rule is substantive rather than procedural. The old “watershed rule” exception is no longer available. Edwards v. Vannoy, 593 U.S. 255 (2021).
Will a change to a rule of criminal procedure help my case?
Probably not, if your conviction was already final when the change came. A change that narrows a criminal statute or limits punishment is different and may help. Book a consultation with Brandon Sample to talk it through.
Related pages
Second or Successive 2255 Motions
Questions about your case? Book a consultation to talk it through with Brandon Sample.