In the case of Kelly Harrington, Warden v. Joshua Richter (2010), the U.S Supreme Court ruled in favor of petitioner Kelly Harrington, reversing a decision by the Ninth Circuit Court that had granted habeas corpus relief to respondent Joshua Richter. The court held that under 28 U.S.C §2254(d), which limits federal courts' authority to grant habeas relief for any claim adjudicated on its merits in state court proceedings unless it resulted in a decision contrary to clearly established Federal law or involved an unreasonable determination of facts, Richter was not entitled to such relief. The majority opinion stated that Richter's defense counsel did not provide ineffective assistance during his trial for attempted murder and first-degree murder charges as claimed by him because there was no clear precedent requiring specific expert testimony about blood evidence at his trial.

In the dissenting opinion for Kelly Harrington, Warden v. Joshua Richter (2010), Justice Ginsburg argued that the majority had wrongly applied federal law in overturning a lower court's decision to grant habeas corpus relief to Richter. She contended that the state court’s decision was unreasonable because it failed to consider key evidence and did not adequately explain its reasoning. Specifically, she pointed out that there were significant inconsistencies in testimony from prosecution witnesses which raised reasonable doubt about Richter's guilt. Furthermore, she criticized the majority for failing to give due deference to the lower federal courts' findings of fact and legal conclusions based on those facts as required by law under 28 U.S.C §2254(d). In her view, this case represented an unwarranted expansion of judicial power at expense of principles of federalism and comity.