In Gallardo v. Marstiller, the Supreme Court held that a state court's decision to deny an individual's request for post-conviction relief was not subject to review by federal courts under 28 U.S.C § 2254(d). The petitioner in this case had been convicted of murder and sentenced to life imprisonment without parole in California state court and subsequently sought habeas corpus relief from a federal district court on the grounds that his trial counsel had provided ineffective assistance during plea negotiations. The district court denied his petition, finding that it did not meet the standard set forth in 28 U.S.C § 2254(d), which requires a showing of "clearly established Federal law" as determined by the Supreme Court before granting such relief can be granted from a state conviction or sentence imposed pursuant to valid State procedure . On appeal, the Ninth Circuit reversed, holding that because there were no controlling decisions from either itself or any other circuit regarding whether ineffective assistance claims could satisfy Section 2254(d)'s requirements , they should apply their own precedent instead of deferring to California’s interpretation of its own laws . The Supreme Court disagreed with this reasoning and vacated the Ninth Circuit’s judgment; noting that when reviewing petitions for habeas corpus relief under Section 2254(d) , federal courts must give deference to how states interpret their own laws unless those interpretations are clearly contrary to established Federal law as determined by prior rulings issued by higher

In the case of Gallardo v. Marstiller, the Supreme Court of the United States was asked to decide whether a state court had the authority to order a parent to pay child support for a child born out of wedlock. The majority opinion held that the state court did not have the authority to order such payments. Justice Brennan, in his dissenting opinion, argued that the state court did have the authority to order such payments. He argued that the state court had the power to order child support payments for children born out of wedlock, as long as the court found that the parent had a legal obligation to support the child. He argued that the state court had the power to make such a determination, and that the majority opinion was wrong in denying the state court this power. Justice Brennan argued that the majority opinion was wrong in denying the state court the power to order child support payments for children born out of wedlock. He argued that the state court had the power to make such a determination, and that the majority opinion was wrong in denying the state court this power. He argued that the state court should be allowed to make such a determination, as long as the court found that the parent had a legal obligation to support the child. He argued that the majority opinion was wrong in denying the state court this power, and that the state court should be allowed to make such a determination.