[5] In 1990, the Supreme Court held in Cage v. Louisiana that certain jury instructions violated the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution because the words "substantial" and "grave" did not suggest the degree of proof required by the "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard.

[11] In a 5-4 opinion written by Justice Clarence Thomas, the Supreme Court affirmed the Fifth Circuit's denial of Tyler's habeas petition.

[1][7][11] The Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (AEDPA) lays out the process for which prisoners may seek post-conviction relief in federal court.

[12] The gatekeeper provision of section 2244(b) requires that a claim from a first petition that is presented in a second petition must be dismissed; the same applies for claims not presented in the first petition, unless the petitioner can show that the new claim “relies on a new rule of constitutional law made retroactive to cases on collateral review by the Supreme Court that was previously unavailable.”[7][8] The Court looked to the construction of the gatekeeper provision, interpreting the word "made" to mean "held",[2] and held that a new constitutional rules only applies retroactively on collateral review if the Supreme Court holds that it does.

[15][16] Justice Thomas explained: "The only holding in Cage is that the particular jury instruction violated the Due Process Clause.

[1] The dissent argued that the new constitutional rule in Cage has been held to apply retroactively on collateral review, and that Tyler's habeas petition should be allowed.

[12] Justice Breyer outlined the possible negative consequences of the majority's decision: "After today's opinion, the only way in which this Court can make a rule such as Cage's retroactive is to repeat its Sullivan reasoning in a case triggered by a prisoner's filing a first habeas petition (a "second or successive" petition itself being barred by the provision here at issue) or in some other case that presents the issue in a posture that allows such language to have the status of a "holding."