H

In Teague v. Lane, 489 U. S. 288 (1989), the court held that the petitioner was not entitled to federal habeas relief because he was relying on a rule of federal law that had not been announced until after his state conviction became final. The antiretroactivity rule recognized in Teague, which prohibits reliance on 'new rules,' is the functional equivalent of a statutory provision commanding exclusive reliance on 'clearly established law.' Because there is no reason to believe that Congress intended to require federal courts to ask both whether a rule sought on habeas is 'new' under Teague, which remains the law-and also ...