In the case of Rick Thaler, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Division v. Anthony Cardell Haynes in 2009, the U.S Supreme Court was tasked with determining whether a federal court could grant habeas corpus relief to a state prisoner based on its own interpretation of what it deemed an 'unreasonable application' of clearly established Federal law by the State's highest court. The petitioner argued that his constitutional rights were violated because he wasn't allowed to present mitigating evidence during sentencing for capital murder charges. However, the Fifth Circuit granted him relief under AEDPA (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act), stating that Texas courts had unreasonably applied relevant Supreme Court precedent regarding mitigation evidence in death penalty cases. The Supreme Court reversed this decision unanimously without hearing oral arguments or receiving full briefs from both parties - known as "summary reversal". They held that there was no clear error made by Texas courts and thus no basis for granting habeas corpus relief under AEDPA.

In the case of Rick Thaler, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Division v. Anthony Cardell Haynes (2009), there was no official dissenting opinion recorded in the Supreme Court's decision to remand the case back to lower courts for further consideration. The court did not provide a full explanation for its decision but cited another ruling as precedent: Sears v. Upton (2010). This suggests that some justices may have disagreed with how the lower courts handled certain aspects of Haynes' trial and sentencing but does not offer specific details about their concerns or disagreements.