The appeals court found the test was applicable to behavior by private spectators and that the decision to permit the buttons unfairly prejudiced the defendant.

In his brief majority opinion, Justice Clarence Thomas began by indicating that Williams v. Taylor[6] limits the phrase "clearly established federal law" to the holdings instead of the dicta of previous decisions.

In both Williams and Flynn, the two cases cited by the appeals court, the holdings were regarding government-sponsored action, whereas the buttons were worn by private spectators.

However, due to prior decisions specifically regarding similar spectator actions and a concern about free speech, Souter didn't find the trial judge had acted unreasonably in permitting the buttons.

Justice Kennedy also agreed that prior cases would apply generally to spectator behavior, but didn't find the precedent necessary to indicate that the buttons were coercive or intimidating to the defendant.