TYLER v. CAIN, WARDEN

533US2 Unit: $U86 [10-19-02 15:45:11] PAGES PGT: OPIN
656 OCTOBER TERM, 2000
Syllabus
TYLER v. CAIN, WARDEN
certiorari to the united states court of appeals for
the fifth circuit
No. 00–5961. Argued April 16, 2001—Decided June 28, 2001
After petitioner Tyler was convicted of second-degree murder and his con-
viction was affirmed on appeal, he filed five Louisiana state-court peti-
tions for postconviction relief and a federal habeas petition, all of which
were denied. After this Court decided Cage v. Louisiana, 498 U. S.
39—under which a jury instruction is unconstitutional if there is a rea-
sonable likelihood that the jury understood it to allow conviction without
proof beyond a reasonable doubt—Tyler filed a sixth state petition,
claiming that a jury instruction in his trial was substantively identical
to the one condemned in Cage. The State District Court denied relief,
and the State Supreme Court affirmed. Seeking to pursue his Cage
claim in federal court, Tyler moved the Fifth Circuit for permission to
file a second habeas application, as required by the Antiterrorism and
Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (AEDPA). The court granted the
motion. The District Court then proceeded to the merits of Tyler’s
claim and denied relief. Although the Fifth Circuit affirmed, it stated
that the District Court had erred by failing first to determine whether
Tyler had satisfied AEDPA’s successive habeas standard, which requires
a district court to dismiss a claim in a second or successive application
unless, as relevant here, the applicant “shows” that the “claim relies on
a new rule of constitutional law, made retroactive to cases on collateral
review by the Supreme Court, that was previously unavailable.” 28
U. S. C. § 2244(b)(2)(A) (emphasis added). Relying on Circuit precedent,
the court concluded that Tyler did not meet this standard.
Held: The Cage rule was not “made retroactive to cases on collateral
review by the Supreme Court,” within the meaning of § 2244(b)(2)(A).
Pp. 661–668.
(a) Based on § 2244(b)(2)(A)’s plain meaning when read as a whole,
“made” means “held.” Under the statute, this Court is the only entity
that can “ma[k]e” a new rule retroactive. The new rule becomes retro-
active, not by the decisions of the lower court or by the combined action
of the Supreme Court and the lower courts, but simply by the action of
the Supreme Court. The only way the Supreme Court can, by itself,
lay out and construct a rule’s retroactive effect is through a holding.
This Court does not “ma[k]e” a rule retroactive when it merely estab-

533US2 Unit: $U86 [10-19-02 15:45:11] PAGES PGT: OPIN
657 Cite as: 533 U. S. 656 (2001)
Syllabus
lishes principles of retroactivity and leaves their application to lower
courts. In such an event, the lower court (or perhaps a combination of
courts), not the Supreme Court, develops any legal conclusion derived
from those principles. Although the statute uses the word “made,” not
“held,” Congress is permitted to use synonyms in a statute, see Wil-
liams v. Taylor, 529 U. S. 362, and “made” and “held” are synonyms
in the § 2244(b)(2)(A) context. This interpretation is necessary for the
proper implementation of AEDPA’s collateral review structure. The
stringent 30-day time period that § 2244(b)(3)(D) imposes on courts of
appeals determining whether an application “makes a prima facie show-
ing that [it] satisfies the [second habeas standard],” § 2244(b)(3)(C), sug-
gests that those courts do not have to engage in the difficult legal analy-
sis that can be required to determine questions of retroactivity in the
first instance, but need only rely on Supreme Court retroactivity hold-
ings. Pp. 662–664.
(b) The Cage rule has not been “made retroactive . . . by the Supreme
Court.” Cage did not make itself retroactive, and neither did Sullivan
v. Louisiana, 508 U. S. 275, 279. Tyler contends that Sullivan’s reason-
ing makes it clear that retroactive application of Cage is warranted by
the principles of Teague v. Lane, 489 U. S. 288, 311–313, in which the
Court held that a new rule can be retroactive to cases on collateral
review only if it falls within one of two narrow exceptions to the general
rule of nonretroactivity. However, the most Tyler can claim is that,
based on Teague’s principles, this Court should make Cage retroactive
to cases on collateral review. It is clear, however, that the Court has
not done so. Although the Court can make a rule retroactive over the
course of two cases, it has not done so here. Pp. 664–667.
(c) This Court declines to make Cage retroactive today. Because
Tyler’s habeas application was his second, the District Court was re-
quired to dismiss it unless Tyler showed that this Court already had
made Cage retroactive. This Court cannot decide today whether Cage
is retroactive to cases on collateral review, because that decision will not
help Tyler in this case. Any statement on Cage’s retroactivity would
be dictum, so this Court declines to comment further on the issue.
Pp. 667–668.
218 F. 3d 744, affirmed.
Thomas, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Rehnquist,
C. J., and O’Connor, Scalia, and Kennedy, JJ., joined. O’Connor, J.,
filed a concurring opinion, post, p. 668. Breyer, J., filed a dissenting opin-
ion, in which Stevens, Souter, and Ginsburg, JJ., joined, post, p. 670.

533US2 Unit: $U86 [10-19-02 15:45:11] PAGES PGT: OPIN
658 TYLER v. CAIN
Opinion of the Court
Herbert V. Larson, Jr., argued the cause for petitioner.
With him on the briefs was Scott L. Nelson.
Charles E. F. Heuer argued the cause for respondent.
With him on the brief were Harry F. Connick and Val M.
Solino.
James A. Feldman argued the cause for the United States
as amicus curiae urging affirmance. With him on the
brief were Acting Solicitor General Underwood, Acting As-
sistant Attorney General Keeney, Deputy Solicitor General
Dreeben, and Nina Goodman.*
Justice Thomas delivered the opinion of the Court.
Under Cage v. Louisiana, 498 U. S. 39 (1990) (per curiam),
a jury instruction is unconstitutional if there is a reasonable
likelihood that the jury understood the instruction to allow
conviction without proof beyond a reasonable doubt.1 In
*Briefs of amici curiae urging affirmance were filed for the State of
California et al. by Bill Lockyer, Attorney General of California, David
P. Druliner, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Carol Wendelin Pollack,
Senior Assistant Attorney General, and Donald E. de Nicola and James
William Bilderback II, Deputy Attorneys General, and by the Attorneys
General for their respective States as follows: Bill Pryor of Alabama,
Bruce M. Botelho of Alaska, Ken Salazar of Colorado, M. Jane Brady of
Delaware, Robert A. Butterworth of Florida, James E. Ryan of Illinois,
Thomas J. Miller of Iowa, Carla J. Stovall of Kansas, Jeremiah W. (Jay)
Nixon of Missouri, Mike McGrath of Montana, Don Stenberg of Nebraska,
Frankie Sue Del Papa of Nevada, Patricia A. Madrid of New Mexico,
Eliot Spitzer of New York, Wayne Stenehjem of North Dakota, Betty D.
Montgomery of Ohio, W. A. Drew Edmondson of Oklahoma, Hardy Myers
of Oregon, D. Michael Fisher of Pennsylvania, Charles M. Condon of
South Carolina, Mark Barnett of South Dakota, Paul G. Summers of Ten-
nessee, Mark L. Shurtleff of Utah, William H. Sorrell of Vermont, and
Mark L. Early of Virginia; and for the Criminal Justice Legal Foundation
by Kent S. Scheidegger.
1 In Cage, this Court observed that a reasonable juror “could have” in-
terpreted the instruction at issue to permit a finding of guilt without the
requisite proof. 498 U. S., at 41. In Estelle v. McGuire, 502 U. S. 62, 72,

533US2 Unit: $U86 [10-19-02 15:45:11] PAGES PGT: OPIN
659 Cite as: 533 U. S. 656 (2001)
Opinion of the Court
this case, we must decide whether this rule was “made retro-
active to cases on collateral review by the Supreme Court.”
28 U. S. C. § 2244(b)(2)(A) (1994 ed., Supp. V). We hold that
it was not.
I
During a fight with his estranged girlfriend in March 1975,
petitioner Melvin Tyler shot and killed their 20-day-old
daughter. A jury found Tyler guilty of second-degree mur-
der, and his conviction was affirmed on appeal. After sen-
tencing, Tyler assiduously sought postconviction relief. By
1986, he had filed five state petitions, all of which were de-
nied. See State ex rel. Tyler v. Blackburn, 494 So. 2d 1171
(La. 1986); State v. Tyler, 446 So. 2d 1226 (La. 1984); State
ex rel. Tyler v. State, 437 So. 2d 1142 (La. 1983); State v.
Tyler, 430 So. 2d 92 (La. 1983); State ex rel. Tyler v. Maggio,
428 So. 2d 483 (La. 1982). He next filed a federal habeas
petition, which was unsuccessful as well. Tyler v. Butler,
No. 88cv4929 (ED La.), aff ’d, Tyler v. Whitley, 920 F. 2d 929
(CA5 1990). After this Court’s decision in Cage, Tyler con-
tinued his efforts. Because the jury instruction defining
reasonable doubt at Tyler’s trial was substantively identical
to the instruction condemned in Cage, Tyler filed a sixth
state postconviction petition, this time raising a Cage claim.
The State District Court denied relief, and the Louisiana
Supreme Court affirmed. State ex rel. Tyler v. Cain, 684
So. 2d 950 (1996).
In early 1997, Tyler returned to federal court. Seeking
to pursue his Cage claim, Tyler moved the United States
and n. 4 (1991), however, this Court made clear that the proper inquiry is
not whether the instruction “could have” been applied unconstitutionally,
but whether there is a reasonable likelihood that the jury did so apply
it. See also Victor v. Nebraska, 511 U. S. 1, 6 (1994) (“The constitutional
question in the present cases . . . is whether there is a reasonable likelihood
that the jury understood the instructions to allow conviction based on
proof insufficient to meet the [constitutional] standard”).

533US2 Unit: $U86 [10-19-02 15:45:11] PAGES PGT: OPIN
660 TYLER v. CAIN
Opinion of the Court
Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit for permission to file
a second habeas corpus application, as required by the Anti-
terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (AEDPA),
110 Stat. 1214.2 The Court of Appeals recognized that it
could not grant the motion unless Tyler made “a prima facie
showing,” § 2244(b)(3)(C), that his “claim relies on a new rule
of constitutional law, made retroactive to cases on collateral
review by the Supreme Court, that was previously unavail-
able,” § 2244(b)(2)(A). Finding that Tyler had made the req-
uisite prima facie showing, the Court of Appeals granted the
motion, thereby allowing Tyler to file a habeas petition in
District Court.
The District Court proceeded to the merits of Tyler’s claim
and held that, although Cage should apply retroactively, App.
5–7 (citing Humphrey v. Cain, 138 F. 3d 552 (CA5 1998)
(en banc)), Tyler was not entitled to collateral relief. Under
AEDPA, a state prisoner can prevail only if the state court’s
decision “was contrary to, or involved an unreasonable ap-
plication of, clearly established Federal law, as determined
by the Supreme Court of the United States.” § 2254(d)(1).
Concluding that Tyler could not overcome this barrier, the
District Court denied his petition.
The Court of Appeals affirmed. Judgt. order reported at
218 F. 3d 744 (CA5 2000). It stated, however, that the Dis-
trict Court erred by failing first to determine whether Tyler
“satisfied AEDPA’s successive habeas standard.” App. 15.
AEDPA requires a district court to dismiss a claim in a sec-
ond or successive application unless, as relevant here, the
applicant “shows” that the “claim relies on a new rule of
constitutional law, made retroactive to cases on collateral
review by the Supreme Court, that was previously unavail-
2 AEDPA requires that, “[b]efore a second or successive application . . .
is filed in the district court, the applicant shall move in the appropriate
court of appeals for an order authorizing the district court to consider the
application.” 28 U. S. C. § 2244(b)(3)(A) (1994 ed., Supp. V).

533US2 Unit: $U86 [10-19-02 15:45:11] PAGES PGT: OPIN
661 Cite as: 533 U. S. 656 (2001)
Opinion of the Court
able,” 3 § 2244(b)(2)(A) (emphasis added); § 2244(b)(4). Rely-
ing on Circuit precedent, see Brown v. Lensing, 171 F. 3d
1031 (CA5 1999); In re Smith, 142 F. 3d 832 (CA5 1998), the
Court of Appeals concluded that Tyler did not meet this
standard because he “could not show that any Supreme
Court decision renders the Cage decision retroactively appli-
cable to cases on collateral review.” App. 15.
The Courts of Appeals are divided on the question
whether Cage was “made retroactive to cases on collateral
review by the Supreme Court,” as required by 28 U. S. C.
§ 2244(b)(2)(A). Compare Rodriguez v. Superintendent, 139
F. 3d 270 (CA1 1998) (holding that Cage has not been made
retroactive by the Supreme Court); Brown, supra (same);
In re Hill, 113 F. 3d 181 (CA11 1997) (same), with West v.
Vaughn, 204 F. 3d 53 (CA3 2000) (holding that Cage has been
made retroactive to cases on collateral review). To resolve
this conflict, we granted certiorari. 531 U. S. 1051 (2000).
II
AEDPA greatly restricts the power of federal courts to
award relief to state prisoners who file second or successive
habeas corpus applications. If the prisoner asserts a claim
that he has already presented in a previous federal ha-
beas petition, the claim must be dismissed in all cases.
§ 2244(b)(1). And if the prisoner asserts a claim that was
not presented in a previous petition, the claim must be dis-
missed unless it falls within one of two narrow exceptions.
One of these exceptions is for claims predicated on newly
3 This requirement differs from the one that applicants must satisfy in
order to obtain permission from a court of appeals to file a second or
successive petition. As noted above, a court of appeals may authorize
such a filing only if it determines that the applicant makes a “prima
facie showing” that the application satisfies the statutory standard.
§ 2244(b)(3)(C). But to survive dismissal in district court, the applicant
must actually “sho[w]” that the claim satisfies the standard.

533US2 Unit: $U86 [10-19-02 15:45:11] PAGES PGT: OPIN
662 TYLER v. CAIN
Opinion of the Court
discovered facts that call into question the accuracy of
a guilty verdict. § 2244(b)(2)(B). The other is for cer-
tain claims relying on new rules of constitutional law.
§ 2244(b)(2)(A).
It is the latter exception that concerns us today. Specifi-
cally, § 2244(b)(2)(A) covers claims that “rel[y] on a new rule
of constitutional law, made retroactive to cases on collateral
review by the Supreme Court, that was previously unavail-
able.” This provision establishes three prerequisites to ob-
taining relief in a second or successive petition: First, the
rule on which the claim relies must be a “new rule” of consti-
tutional law; second, the rule must have been “made retroac-
tive to cases on collateral review by the Supreme Court”;
and third, the claim must have been “previously unavail-
able.” In this case, the parties ask us to interpret only the
second requirement; respondent does not dispute that Cage
created a “new rule” that was “previously unavailable.”
Based on the plain meaning of the text read as a whole, we
conclude that “made” means “held” and, thus, the require-
ment is satisfied only if this Court has held that the new rule
is retroactively applicable to cases on collateral review.
A
As commonly defined, “made” has several alternative
meanings, none of which is entirely free from ambiguity.
See, e. g., Webster’s Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary 718–
719 (1991) (defining “to make” as “to cause to happen,” “to
cause to exist, occur or appear,” “to lay out and construct,”
and “to cause to act in a certain way”). Out of context, it
may thus be unclear which meaning should apply in
§ 2244(b)(2)(A), and how the term should be understood. We
do not, however, construe the meaning of statutory terms in
a vacuum. Rather, we interpret the words “in their context
and with a view to their place in the overall statutory
scheme.” Davis v. Michigan Dept. of Treasury, 489 U. S.
803, 809 (1989). In § 2244(b)(2)(A), the word “made” falls
within a clause that reads as follows: “[A] new rule of consti-

533US2 Unit: $U86 [10-19-02 15:45:11] PAGES PGT: OPIN
663 Cite as: 533 U. S. 656 (2001)
Opinion of the Court
tutional law, made retroactive to cases on collateral review
by the Supreme Court.” (Emphasis added.) Quite signifi-
cantly, under this provision, the Supreme Court is the only
entity that can “ma[k]e” a new rule retroactive. The new
rule becomes retroactive, not by the decisions of the lower
court or by the combined action of the Supreme Court and
the lower courts, but simply by the action of the Supreme
Court.
The only way the Supreme Court can, by itself, “lay out
and construct” a rule’s retroactive effect, or “cause” that ef-
fect “to exist, occur, or appear,” is through a holding. The
Supreme Court does not “ma[k]e” a rule retroactive when it
merely establishes principles of retroactivity and leaves the
application of those principles to lower courts. In such an
event, any legal conclusion that is derived from the principles
is developed by the lower court (or perhaps by a combination
of courts), not by the Supreme Court.4 We thus conclude
that a new rule is not “made retroactive to cases on collateral
review” unless the Supreme Court holds it to be retroactive.5
4 Similarly, the Supreme Court does not make a rule retroactive through
dictum, which is not binding. Cf. Seminole Tribe of Fla. v. Florida, 517
U. S. 44, 67 (1996) (contrasting dictum with holdings, which include the
final disposition of a case as well as the preceding determinations “neces-
sary to that result” (emphasis added)).
5 Tyler argues that defining “made” to mean “held” would create an
anomaly: When it is obvious that a rule should be retroactive, the courts
of appeals will not be in conflict, and this Court will never decide to hear
the case and will never make the rule retroactive. Thus, Tyler concludes,
we should construe § 2244(b)(2)(A) to allow for retroactive application
whenever the “principles” of our decisions, as interpreted by the courts of
appeals, indicate that retroactivity is appropriate. This argument is
flawed, however. First, even if we disagreed with the legislative decision
to establish stringent procedural requirements for retroactive application
of new rules, we do not have license to question the decision on policy
grounds. See Connecticut Nat. Bank v. Germain, 503 U. S. 249, 253–254
(1992). Second, the “anomalous” result that Tyler predicts is speculative
at best, because AEDPA does not limit our discretion to grant certiorari
to cases in which the courts of appeals have reached divergent results.

533US2 Unit: $U86 [10-19-02 15:45:11] PAGES PGT: OPIN
664 TYLER v. CAIN
Opinion of the Court
To be sure, the statute uses the word “made,” not “held.”
But we have already stated, in a decision interpreting an-
other provision of AEDPA, that Congress need not use the
word “held” to require as much. In Williams v. Taylor, 529
U. S. 362 (2000), we concluded that the phrase “clearly estab-
lished Federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court of
the United States,” § 2254(d)(1) (emphasis added), “refers to
the holdings, as opposed to the dicta, of this Court’s deci-
sions,” id., at 412. The provision did not use the word
“held,” but the effect was the same. Congress, needless to
say, is permitted to use synonyms in a statute. And just
as “determined” and “held” are synonyms in the context of
§ 2254(d)(1), “made” and “held” are synonyms in the context
of § 2244(b)(2)(A).
We further note that our interpretation is necessary for
the proper implementation of the collateral review structure
created by AEDPA. Under the statute, before a state pris-
oner may file a second or successive habeas application, he
“shall move in the appropriate court of appeals for an order
authorizing the district court to consider the application.”
§ 2244(b)(3)(A). The court of appeals must make a decision
on the application within 30 days. § 2244(b)(3)(D). In this
limited time, the court of appeals must determine whether
the application “makes a prima facie showing that [it] satis-
fies the [second habeas standard].” § 2244(b)(3)(C). It is
unlikely that a court of appeals could make such a determina-
tion in the allotted time if it had to do more than simply rely
on Supreme Court holdings on retroactivity. The stringent
time limit thus suggests that the courts of appeals do not
have to engage in the difficult legal analysis that can be
required to determine questions of retroactivity in the first
instance.
B
Because “made” means “ held” for purposes of
§ 2244(b)(2)(A), it is clear that the Cage rule has not been
“made retroactive to cases on collateral review by the Su-
preme Court.” Cage itself does not hold that it is retroac-

533US2 Unit: $U86 [10-19-02 15:45:11] PAGES PGT: OPIN
665 Cite as: 533 U. S. 656 (2001)
Opinion of the Court
tive. The only holding in Cage is that the particular jury
instruction violated the Due Process Clause.
Tyler argues, however, that a subsequent case, Sullivan
v. Louisiana, 508 U. S. 275 (1993), made the Cage rule retro-
active. But Sullivan held only that a Cage error is struc-
tural—i. e., it is not amenable to harmless-error analysis and
“will always invalidate the conviction.” 508 U. S., at 279.
Conceding that the holding in Sullivan does not render Cage
retroactive to cases on collateral review, Tyler contends that
the reasoning in Sullivan makes clear that retroactive appli-
cation is warranted by the principles of Teague v. Lane, 489
U. S. 288 (1989). Under Teague, a new rule can be retroac-
tive to cases on collateral review if, and only if, it falls within
one of two narrow exceptions to the general rule of nonretro-
activity. Id., at 311–313 (plurality opinion). See also O’Dell
v. Netherland, 521 U. S. 151, 156–157 (1997). The exception
relevant here is for “watershed rules of criminal procedure
implicating the fundamental fairness and accuracy of the
criminal proceeding.” Graham v. Collins, 506 U. S. 461, 478
(1993). To fall within this exception, a new rule must meet
two requirements: Infringement of the rule must “seriously
diminish the likelihood of obtaining an accurate conviction,”
and the rule must “ ‘ “alter our understanding of the bedrock
procedural elements” ’ essential to the fairness of a proceed-
ing.” Sawyer v. Smith, 497 U. S. 227, 242 (1990) (quoting
Teague, supra, at 311 (plurality opinion), in turn quoting
Mackey v. United States, 401 U. S. 667, 693 (1971) (Harlan,
J., concurring in judgments in part and dissenting in part)).
According to Tyler, the reasoning of Sullivan demon-
strates that the Cage rule satisfies both prongs of this Teague
exception. First, Tyler notes, Sullivan repeatedly empha-
sized that a Cage error fundamentally undermines the relia-
bility of a trial’s outcome. And second, Tyler contends, the
central point of Sullivan is that a Cage error deprives a de-
fendant of a bedrock element of procedural fairness: the right
to have the jury make the determination of guilt beyond a
reasonable doubt. Tyler’s arguments fail to persuade, how-

533US2 Unit: $U86 [10-19-02 15:45:12] PAGES PGT: OPIN
666 TYLER v. CAIN
Opinion of the Court
ever. The most he can claim is that, based on the principles
outlined in Teague, this Court should make Cage retroactive
to cases on collateral review. What is clear, however, is that
we have not “made” Cage retroactive to cases on collateral
review.6
Justice Breyer observes that this Court can make a rule
retroactive over the course of two cases. See post, at 672–
673 (dissenting opinion). We do not disagree that, with the
right combination of holdings, the Court could do this. But
even so, the Court has not made Cage retroactive. Multiple
cases can render a new rule retroactive only if the holdings
in those cases necessarily dictate retroactivity of the new
rule. The only holding in Sullivan is that a Cage error is
structural error. There is no second case that held that
all structural-error rules apply retroactively or that all
structural-error rules fit within the second Teague exception.
The standard for determining whether an error is structural,
see generally Arizona v. Fulminante, 499 U. S. 279 (1991),
is not coextensive with the second Teague exception,7 and a
6 We also reject Tyler’s attempt to find support in our disposition in
Adams v. Evatt, 511 U. S. 1001 (1994). In Adams, we vacated an opinion
of the Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, which had held that Cage
was not retroactive, and remanded for further consideration in light of
Sullivan. Our order, however, was not a “final determination on the mer-
its.” Henry v. Rock Hill, 376 U. S. 776, 777 (1964) (per curiam). It sim-
ply indicated that, in light of “intervening developments,” there was a
“reasonable probability” that the Court of Appeals would reject a legal
premise on which it relied and which may affect the outcome of the litiga-
tion. Lawrence v. Chater, 516 U. S. 163, 167 (1996) (per curiam).
7 As explained above, the second Teague exception is available only if
the new rule “ ‘ “alter[s] our understanding of the bedrock procedural
elements” ’ essential to the fairness of a proceeding.” Sawyer v. Smith,
497 U. S. 227, 242 (1990) (quoting Teague v. Lane, 489 U. S. 288, 311 (1989)
(plurality opinion), in turn quoting Mackey v. United States, 401 U. S. 667,
693 (1971) (Harlan, J., concurring in judgments in part and dissenting in
part) (emphasis added)). Classifying an error as structural does not nec-
essarily alter our understanding of these bedrock procedural elements.
Nor can it be said that all new rules relating to due process (or even

533US2 Unit: $U86 [10-19-02 15:45:12] PAGES PGT: OPIN
667 Cite as: 533 U. S. 656 (2001)
Opinion of the Court
holding that a particular error is structural does not logically
dictate the conclusion that the second Teague exception has
been met.
III
Finally, Tyler suggests that, if Cage has not been made
retroactive to cases on collateral review, we should make it
retroactive today. We disagree. Because Tyler’s habeas
application was his second, the District Court was required
to dismiss it unless Tyler showed that this Court already had
made Cage retroactive. § 2244(b)(4) (“A district court shall
dismiss any claim presented in a second or successive appli-
cation that the court of appeals has authorized to be filed
unless the applicant shows that the claim satisfies the re-
quirements of this section”); § 2244(b)(2)(A) (“A claim pre-
sented in a second or successive habeas corpus application
under section 2254 that was not presented in a prior applica-
tion shall be dismissed unless . . . the applicant shows that
the “fundamental requirements of due process,” see post, at 674 (dissent-
ing opinion)) alter such understanding. See, e. g., Sawyer, supra, at 244
(holding that the rule in Caldwell v. Mississippi, 472 U. S. 320 (1985), did
not fit within the second Teague exception even though it “added to an
existing guarantee of due process protection against fundamental unfair-
ness”); O’Dell v. Netherland, 521 U. S. 151, 167 (1997) (holding that the
rule in Simmons v. South Carolina, 512 U. S. 154 (1994), which has been
described as serving “one of the hallmarks of due process,” id., at 175
(O’Connor, J., concurring in judgment), did not fit within the second
Teague exception). On the contrary, the second Teague exception is re-
served only for truly “watershed” rules. See O’Dell, supra, at 167; see
also Caspari v. Bohlen, 510 U. S. 383, 396 (1994) (describing such rules as
“groundbreaking”); Graham v. Collins, 506 U. S. 461, 478 (1993) (explain-
ing that the exception is limited to “a small core of rules,” which not
only seriously enhance accuracy but also “requir[e] ‘observance of those
procedures that . . . are implicit in the concept of ordered liberty’ ”) (quot-
ing Teague, supra, at 311 (internal quotation marks omitted)); Saffle v.
Parks, 494 U. S. 484, 495 (1990) (focusing on “primacy and centrality” of
the rule). As we have recognized, it is unlikely that any of these water-
shed rules “ha[s] yet to emerge.” Sawyer, supra, at 243 (quoting Teague,
supra, at 313 (plurality opinion)); see also Graham, supra, at 478.

533US2 Unit: $U86 [10-19-02 15:45:12] PAGES PGT: OPIN
668 TYLER v. CAIN
O’Connor, J., concurring
the claim relies on a new rule of constitutional law, made
retroactive to cases on collateral review by the Supreme
Court, that was previously unavailable”). We cannot decide
today whether Cage is retroactive to cases on collateral re-
view, because that decision would not help Tyler in this case.
Any statement on Cage’s retroactivity would be dictum, so
we decline to comment further on the issue.
* * *
The judgment of the Court of Appeals is affirmed.
It is so ordered.
Justice O’Connor, concurring.
I join the Court’s opinion and write separately to explain
more fully the circumstances in which a new rule is “made
retroactive to cases on collateral review by the Supreme
Court.” 28 U. S. C. § 2244(b)(2)(A) (1994 ed., Supp. V).
It is only through the holdings of this Court, as opposed
to this Court’s dicta and as opposed to the decisions of any
other court, that a new rule is “made retroactive . . . by the
Supreme Court” within the meaning of § 2244(b)(2)(A). See
ante, at 663; cf. Williams v. Taylor, 529 U. S. 362, 412 (2000).
The clearest instance, of course, in which we can be said to
have “made” a new rule retroactive is where we expressly
have held the new rule to be retroactive in a case on collat-
eral review and applied the rule to that case. But, as the
Court recognizes, a single case that expressly holds a rule to
be retroactive is not a sine qua non for the satisfaction of
this statutory provision. Ante, at 666. This Court instead
may “ma[k]e” a new rule retroactive through multiple hold-
ings that logically dictate the retroactivity of the new rule.
Ibid. To apply the syllogistic relationship described by Jus-
tice Breyer, post, at 672–673 (dissenting opinion), if we
hold in Case One that a particular type of rule applies retro-
actively to cases on collateral review and hold in Case Two

533US2 Unit: $U86 [10-19-02 15:45:12] PAGES PGT: OPIN
669 Cite as: 533 U. S. 656 (2001)
O’Connor, J., concurring
that a given rule is of that particular type, then it necessarily
follows that the given rule applies retroactively to cases on
collateral review. In such circumstances, we can be said to
have “made” the given rule retroactive to cases on collat-
eral review.
The relationship between the conclusion that a new rule is
retroactive and the holdings that “ma[k]e” this rule retro-
active, however, must be strictly logical—i. e., the holdings
must dictate the conclusion and not merely provide princi-
ples from which one may conclude that the rule applies ret-
roactively. As the Court observes, “[t]he Supreme Court
does not ‘ma[k]e’ a rule retroactive when it merely estab-
lishes principles of retroactivity and leaves the application of
those principles to lower courts.” Ante, at 663. The Court
instead can be said to have “made” a rule retroactive within
the meaning of § 2244(b)(2)(A) only where the Court’s hold-
ings logically permit no other conclusion than that the rule
is retroactive.
It is relatively easy to demonstrate the required logical
relationship with respect to the first exception articulated in
Teague v. Lane, 489 U. S. 288 (1989). Under this exception,
“a new rule should be applied retroactively if it places ‘cer-
tain kinds of primary, private individual conduct beyond the
power of the criminal law-making authority to proscribe.’ ”
Id., at 307 (plurality opinion) (quoting Mackey v. United
States, 401 U. S. 667, 692 (1971) (Harlan, J., concurring in
judgments in part and dissenting in part)). When the Court
holds as a new rule in a subsequent case that a particular
species of primary, private individual conduct is beyond the
power of the criminal lawmaking authority to proscribe, it
necessarily follows that this Court has “made” that new rule
retroactive to cases on collateral review. The Court has
done so through its holdings alone, without resort to dicta
and without any application of principles by lower courts.
The matter is less straightforward with respect to the sec-
ond Teague exception, which is reserved for “watershed

533US2 Unit: $U86 [10-19-02 15:45:12] PAGES PGT: OPIN
670 TYLER v. CAIN
Breyer, J., dissenting
rules of criminal procedure,” 489 U. S., at 311 (plurality opin-
ion). A case announcing a new rule could conceivably hold
that infringement of the rule “seriously diminish[es] the like-
lihood of obtaining an accurate conviction,” id., at 315, and
that the rule “ ‘alter[s] our understanding of the bedrock pro-
cedural elements essential to the fairness of a proceeding,’ ”
id., at 311 (plurality opinion) (quoting Mackey, supra, at 693
(Harlan, J., concurring in judgments in part and dissenting
in part)); see also Sawyer v. Smith, 497 U. S. 227, 242 (1990),
without holding in so many words that the rule “applies ret-
roactively” and without actually applying that rule retroac-
tively to a case on collateral review. The “precise contours”
of this Teague exception, of course, “may be difficult to dis-
cern,” Saffle v. Parks, 494 U. S. 484, 495 (1990), and the judg-
ment involved in our “ma[king]” a new rule retroactive
under this exception is likely to be more subjective and self-
conscious than is the case with Teague’s first exception. But
the relevant inquiry is not whether the new rule comes
within the Teague exception at all, but the more narrow and
manageable inquiry of whether this Court’s holdings, by
strict logical necessity, “ma[k]e” the new rule retroactive
within the meaning of § 2244(b)(2)(A). While such logical
necessity does not obtain in this particular case, ante, at 665–
667, this Court could “ma[k]e” a new rule retroactive under
Teague’s second exception in this manner.
Justice Breyer, with whom Justice Stevens, Justice
Souter, and Justice Ginsburg join, dissenting.
In Cage v. Louisiana, 498 U. S. 39 (1990) (per curiam),
this Court held that a certain jury instruction violated the
Constitution because it inaccurately defined “reasonable
doubt,” thereby permitting a jury to convict “based on a
degree of proof below that required by the Due Process
Clause.” Id., at 41. Here we must decide whether this
Court has “made” Cage “retroactive to cases on collateral

533US2 Unit: $U86 [10-19-02 15:45:12] PAGES PGT: OPIN
671 Cite as: 533 U. S. 656 (2001)
Breyer, J., dissenting
review.” 28 U. S. C. § 2244(b)(2)(A) (1994 ed., Supp. V). I
believe that it has.
The Court made Cage retroactive in two cases taken to-
gether. Case One is Teague v. Lane, 489 U. S. 288 (1989).
That case, as the majority says, held (among other things)
that a new rule is applicable retroactively to cases on collat-
eral review if (1) infringement of the new rule will “seriously
diminish the likelihood of obtaining an accurate conviction,”
id., at 315 (plurality opinion), and (2) the new rule “ ‘alter[s]
our understanding of the bedrock procedural elements that
must be found to vitiate the fairness of a particular convic-
tion,’ ” id., at 311 (plurality opinion) (quoting Mackey v.
United States, 401 U. S. 667, 693 (1971) (Harlan, J., concur-
ring in judgments in part and dissenting in part)) (empha-
sis deleted).
Case Two is Sullivan v. Louisiana, 508 U. S. 275 (1993).
This Court decided Sullivan after several lower courts had
held that Cage’s rule did not fall within the Teague “water-
shed” exception I have just mentioned. See, e. g., Adams v.
Aiken, 965 F. 2d 1306, 1312 (CA4 1992), vacated, 511 U. S.
1001 (1994); Skelton v. Whitley, 950 F. 2d 1037, 1045 (CA5),
cert. denied, 506 U. S. 833 (1992). The question in Sullivan
was whether a violation of the Cage rule could ever count as
harmless error. The Court answered that question in the
negative. In so concluding, the Court reasoned that an in-
struction that violated Cage by misdescribing the concept of
reasonable doubt “vitiates all the jury’s findings,” and de-
prives a criminal defendant of a “basic protection . . . without
which a criminal trial cannot reliably serve its function.”
Sullivan, supra, at 281 (emphasis in original; internal quota-
tion marks omitted). It renders the situation as if “there
has been no jury verdict within the meaning of the Sixth
Amendment.” 508 U. S., at 280.
To reason as the Court reasoned in Sullivan is to hold
(in Teague’s language) (1) that infringement of the Cage rule
“seriously diminish[es] the likelihood of obtaining an accurate

533US2 Unit: $U86 [10-19-02 15:45:12] PAGES PGT: OPIN
672 TYLER v. CAIN
Breyer, J., dissenting
conviction,” Teague, supra, at 315 (plurality opinion), and
(2) that Cage “alter[s] our understanding of the bedrock
procedural elements” that are essential to the fairness of a
criminal trial, 489 U. S., at 311 (plurality opinion) (internal
quotation marks omitted; emphasis deleted). That is be-
cause an instruction that makes “all the jury’s findings”
untrustworthy, Sullivan, supra, at 281, must “diminish
the likelihood of obtaining an accurate conviction,” Teague,
supra, at 315 (plurality opinion). It is because a deprivation
of a “basic protection” needed for a trial to “serve its func-
tion,” Sullivan, supra, at 281 (internal quotation marks
omitted), is a deprivation of a “bedrock procedural ele-
men[t],” Teague, supra, at 311 (plurality opinion) (internal
quotation marks omitted). And it is because Cage signifi-
cantly “alter[ed]” pre-existing law. 489 U. S., at 311. That
is what every Court of Appeals to have considered the mat-
ter has concluded. See Tillman v. Cook, 215 F. 3d 1116,
1122 (CA10), cert. denied, 531 U. S. 1055 (2000); West v.
Vaughn, 204 F. 3d 53, 61, and n. 9 (CA3 2000); Gaines v. Kelly,
202 F. 3d 598, 604–605 (CA2 2000); Humphrey v. Cain, 138
F. 3d 552, 553 (CA5) (en banc), cert. denied, 525 U. S. 935
(1998); Adams v. Aiken, 41 F. 3d 175, 178–179 (CA4 1994),
cert. denied, 515 U. S. 1124 (1995); Nutter v. White, 39 F. 3d
1154, 1158 (CA11 1994). But cf. In re Smith, 142 F. 3d 832,
835–836 (CA5 1998) (concluding that explicit Supreme Court
statement is necessary to make Cage retroactive for second
or successive habeas purposes); Rodriguez v. Superintend-
ent, Bay State Correctional Ctr., 139 F. 3d 270, 275–276 (CA1
1998) (same); In re Hill, 113 F. 3d 181, 184 (CA11 1997)
(same). And I do not see how the majority can deny that
this is so.
Consequently, Sullivan, in holding that a Cage violation
can never be harmless because it leaves the defendant with
no jury verdict known to the Sixth Amendment, also holds
that Cage falls within Teague’s “watershed” exception. The
matter is one of logic. If Case One holds that all men are

533US2 Unit: $U86 [10-19-02 15:45:12] PAGES PGT: OPIN
673 Cite as: 533 U. S. 656 (2001)
Breyer, J., dissenting
mortal and Case Two holds that Socrates is a man, we do not
need Case Three to hold that Socrates is mortal. It is also a
matter of law. If Case One holds that a party’s expectation
measures damages for breach of contract and Case Two holds
that Circumstances X, Y, and Z create a binding contract,
we do not need Case Three to hold that in those same circum-
stances expectation damages are awarded for breach. Ordi-
narily, in law, to hold that a set of circumstances falls within
a particular legal category is simultaneously to hold that,
other things being equal, the normal legal characteristics of
members of that category apply to those circumstances.
The majority says that Sullivan’s only “holding” is that
Cage error is structural, and that this “holding” does not
dictate the “watershed” nature of the Cage rule. See ante,
at 665–666. But the majority fails to identify a meaningful
difference between the definition of a watershed rule under
Teague and the standard that we have articulated in the
handful of instances in which we have held errors structural,
namely, that structural errors deprive a defendant of a
“ ‘basic protectio[n]’ ” without which a “ ‘trial cannot reliably
serve its function as a vehicle for determination of guilt or
innocence’ ” to the point where “ ‘no criminal punishment
may be regarded as fundamentally fair.’ ” Arizona v. Ful-
minante, 499 U. S. 279, 310 (1991) (quoting Rose v. Clark, 478
U. S. 570, 577–578 (1986)); see also Neder v. United States,
527 U. S. 1, 8 (1999) (identifying the six kinds of error, includ-
ing Cage error, that have been held structural). In principle
Teague also adds an element that “structural error” alone
need not encompass, namely, the requirement that a violation
of the rule must undermine accuracy. But that additional
accuracy requirement poses no problem here, for our lan-
guage in Sullivan could not have made clearer that Cage
error seriously undermines the accuracy and reliability of a
guilty verdict.
Of course, as the majority points out, identifying an error
as structural need not “alter our understanding of th[e] fun-

533US2 Unit: $U86 [10-19-02 15:45:12] PAGES PGT: OPIN
674 TYLER v. CAIN
Breyer, J., dissenting
damental procedural elements” that are essential to a fair
trial. See ante, at 666, n. 7. But this “altering” require-
ment is not a problem here. No one denies that Cage’s rule
was a new one. “Whether a trial court’s unconstitutional
misdescription of the burden of proof in a criminal case
violates the Due Process Clause was certainly an open
question before Cage.” Adams, 41 F. 3d, at 178; see also
Gaines, supra, at 606–607 (noting that Cage led to reversals
of numerous convictions that had been based on similar
reasonable-doubt instruction); State v. Humphrey, 544 So. 2d
1188, 1192 (La. App.) (citing multiple decisions by Louisiana
Supreme Court which had upheld reasonable-doubt instruc-
tions like that invalidated in Cage), cert. denied, 550 So. 2d
627 (1989). And our holding that such a misdescription of
the burden of proof means that “there has been no jury ver-
dict within the meaning of the Sixth Amendment,” Sullivan,
508 U. S., at 280, certainly altered the understanding of the
significance of such an error.
Insofar as the majority means to suggest that a rule may
be sufficiently “new” that it does not apply retroactively but
not “new enough” to qualify for the watershed exception,
I note only that the cases establishing this exception suggest
no such requirement. Rather than focus on the “degree of
newness” of a new rule, these decisions emphasize that
watershed rules are those that form part of the fundamen-
tal requirements of due process. See Teague, 489 U. S., at
311–312 (plurality opinion); Mackey, 401 U. S., at 693–694
(Harlan, J., concurring in judgments in part and dissenting
in part); cf. O’Dell v. Netherland, 521 U. S. 151, 167 (1997)
(holding that “narrow right of rebuttal” established by Sim-
mons v. South Carolina, 512 U. S. 154 (1994), “has hardly
alter[ed] our understanding of the bedrock procedural ele-
ments essential to the fairness of a proceeding” (internal
quotation marks omitted; emphasis in original)); Caspari v.
Bohlen, 510 U. S. 383, 396 (1994) (holding that application of
double jeopardy bar to successive noncapital sentencing
would not be unfair and would enhance rather than hinder

533US2 Unit: $U86 [10-19-02 15:45:12] PAGES PGT: OPIN
675 Cite as: 533 U. S. 656 (2001)
Breyer, J., dissenting
accuracy); Sawyer v. Smith, 497 U. S. 227, 242–244 (1990)
(holding that rule which “provid[ed] an additional measure
of protection” to existing prohibition on prosecutorial re-
marks that render a proceeding “fundamentally unfair” was
not “an ‘absolute prerequisite to fundamental fairness’ ” that
would fall within the second Teague exception) (quoting
Teague, supra, at 314 (plurality opinion)).
Nor does the majority explain why the reasoning that was
necessary to our holding in Sullivan (and is therefore bind-
ing upon all courts) lacks enough legal force to “make” the
Cage rule retroactive. Cf. Seminole Tribe of Fla. v. Flor-
ida, 517 U. S. 44, 67 (1996) (“We adhere . . . not to mere obiter
dicta, but rather to the well-established rationale upon which
the Court based the results of its earlier decisions. When
an opinion issues for the Court, it is not only the result but
also those portions of the opinion necessary to that result by
which we are bound”); Burnham v. Superior Court of Cal.,
County of Marin, 495 U. S. 604, 613, n. 2 (1990) (plurality
opinion) (exclusive basis for judgment is not dicta). In any
event, technical issues about what constitutes a “holding”
are beside the point. The statutory provision before us does
not use the words “holding” or “held.” But cf. ante, at 664
(majority opinion) (stating without explanation that “made”
means “held”). It uses the word “made.” It refers to in-
stances in which the Supreme Court has “made” a rule of
law “retroactive to cases on collateral review.” 28 U. S. C.
§ 2244(b)(2)(A) (1994 ed., Supp. V) (emphasis added). And
that is just what the Supreme Court, through Teague and
Sullivan, has done with respect to the rule of Cage.
I agree with Justice O’Connor—as does a majority of
the Court—when (in describing a different Teague excep-
tion) she says that “[w]hen the Court holds as a new rule in a
subsequent case that a particular species of primary, private
individual conduct is beyond the power of the criminal law-
making authority to proscribe, it necessarily follows that this
Court has ‘made’ that new rule retroactive to cases on collat-
eral review.” Ante, at 669 (concurring opinion). But I do

533US2 Unit: $U86 [10-19-02 15:45:12] PAGES PGT: OPIN
676 TYLER v. CAIN
Breyer, J., dissenting
not understand why a decision by this Court which makes
it apparent that a rule is retroactive under Teague’s second
exception will necessarily be “more subjective and self-
conscious.” Ante, at 670 (concurring opinion). Of course, it
will sometimes be difficult to decide whether an earlier Su-
preme Court case has satisfied the watershed rule’s require-
ments. But that is not so here. In Sullivan, this Court
used language that unmistakably stated that a defective
reasonable-doubt instruction undermines the accuracy of a
trial and deprives the defendant of a bedrock element that
is essential to the fairness of a criminal proceeding. That is
sufficient to make Teague’s watershed exception applicable.
I would add two further points. First, nothing in the
statute’s purpose favors, let alone requires, the majority’s
conclusion. That purpose, as far as I can surmise, is to bar
successive petitions when lower courts, but not the Supreme
Court, have held a rule not to be “new” under Teague be-
cause dictated by their own precedent, cf. Dyer v. Calderon,
151 F. 3d 970, 993–995 (CA9) (en banc) (O’Scannlain, J., dis-
senting) (rejecting proposition that lower court decisions can
establish rule for Teague purposes), cert. denied, 525 U. S.
1033 (1998); Clemmons v. Delo, 124 F. 3d 944, 955, n. 11 (CA8
1997) (assuming, without deciding, that only Supreme Court
precedent may dictate rule so that it is not new for Teague
purposes), cert. denied, 523 U. S. 1088 (1998), or when lower
courts have themselves adopted new rules and then deter-
mined that the Teague retroactivity factors apply, see Smith
v. Groose, 205 F. 3d 1045, 1054 (CA8) (holding that Circuit
rule that prosecution’s use of contradictory theories violates
due process would fall within Teague’s “watershed” excep-
tion), cert. denied sub nom. Gammon v. Smith, 531 U. S.
985 (2000); Sanders v. Sullivan, 900 F. 2d 601, 606–607
(CA2 1990) (same, with respect to Circuit rule that prose-
cution’s unknowing use of material, perjured testimony vio-
lates Constitution). Here, consistent with such a purpose,
the Supreme Court has previously spoken.

533US2 Unit: $U86 [10-19-02 15:45:12] PAGES PGT: OPIN
677 Cite as: 533 U. S. 656 (2001)
Breyer, J., dissenting
Second, the most likely consequence of the majority’s hold-
ing is further procedural complexity. After today’s opinion,
the only way in which this Court can make a rule such as
Cage’s retroactive is to repeat its Sullivan reasoning in a
case triggered by a prisoner’s filing a first habeas petition
(a “second or successive” petition itself being barred by the
provision here at issue) or in some other case that presents
the issue in a posture that allows such language to have the
status of a “holding.” Then, after the Court takes the case
and says that it meant what it previously said, prisoners
could file “second or successive” petitions to take advantage
of the now-clearly-made-applicable new rule. We will be re-
quired to restate the obvious, case by case, even when we
have explicitly said, but not “held,” that a new rule is ret-
roactive. See, e. g., Penry v. Lynaugh, 492 U. S. 302, 330
(1989) (stating that, if Court were to hold that Eighth
Amendment prohibits execution of persons with mental
retardation, this rule would be retroactively applicable on
collateral review).
Even this complex route will remain open only if the rele-
vant statute of limitations is interpreted to permit its 1-year
filing period to run from the time that this Court has “made”
a new rule retroactive, not from the time it initially recog-
nized that new right. See 28 U. S. C. § 2244(d)(1)(C) (1994
ed., Supp. V) (limitations period runs from “the date on
which the constitutional right asserted was initially recog-
nized by the Supreme Court, if the right has been newly
recognized by the Supreme Court and made retroactively
applicable to cases on collateral review”). Otherwise, the
Court’s approach will generate not only complexity, along
with its attendant risk of confusion, but also serious addi-
tional unfairness.
I do not understand the basis for the Court’s approach.
I fear its consequences. For these reasons, with respect,
I dissent.