## Facts

- Thomas Joe Miller-El, a Texas prisoner sentenced to death, was tried for capital murder in Dallas County in 1986.
- Prosecutors used peremptory strikes to exclude 10 of 11 eligible Black prospective jurors.
- Miller-El challenged the jury selection as racially discriminatory; the trial court denied relief under then-controlling law and the jury convicted and imposed a death sentence.
- After *Batson v. Kentucky* was decided, the state court held a *Batson* hearing and rejected the claim, concluding the strikes did not raise an inference of discrimination and that prosecutors offered credible race-neutral reasons.
- State appellate and postconviction courts denied relief.
- Miller-El sought federal habeas relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2254; the district court denied the petition and denied a certificate of appealability (COA) under 28 U.S.C. § 2253.
- The Fifth Circuit denied a COA, treating AEDPA deference and state factfinding presumptions as requiring an especially demanding showing at the COA stage.
- The Supreme Court granted certiorari to review the denial of a COA.

## Issues

1. What standard governs issuance of a COA under 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c) for a state prisoner appealing denial of a § 2254 habeas petition.
2. Whether a court of appeals may require, at the COA stage, a showing akin to “clear and convincing evidence” that state courts erred under AEDPA.
3. Whether Miller-El’s *Batson* claim made the required threshold showing to warrant a COA.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court reversed the Fifth Circuit and remanded.
- A COA determination is a threshold inquiry into whether the constitutional claim is debatable among reasonable jurists, not a merits adjudication.
- The Fifth Circuit erred by collapsing AEDPA’s deferential merits standards into the COA inquiry and by demanding too burdensome a showing.
- Applying the proper standard, Miller-El was entitled to a COA on his *Batson* claim because the record evidence made the discrimination claim reasonably debatable.

## Legal Principles

- A COA issues only if the applicant makes a “substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” (28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2))
- The “substantial showing” requirement is satisfied when reasonable jurists could disagree with the district court’s resolution of the constitutional claim or conclude the issue deserves further review.
- COA review is limited and preliminary; it does not require the applicant to prove entitlement to habeas relief.
- Courts may consider AEDPA constraints in assessing debatability, but may not convert the COA gatekeeping step into full § 2254(d) merits review.
- Evidence such as a striking pattern of peremptory challenges against Black venire members, along with relevant historical and case-specific jury-selection practices, can render a *Batson* claim debatable for COA purposes.

## Conclusion

The Court held that a certificate of appealability requires only a threshold showing that the constitutional claim is debatable among reasonable jurists, and it ruled that Miller-El met that standard on his *Batson* challenge, requiring the Fifth Circuit to allow the appeal to proceed.


Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322 (2003)