Harris v. Reed

{{Use mdy dates|date=January 2025}}

{{Infobox SCOTUS case

|Litigants=Harris v. Reed

|ArgueDate=October 12

|ArgueYear=1988

|DecideDate=February 22

|DecideYear=1989

|FullName=Warren Lee Harris, Petitioner v. Marvin Reed, Warden, et al.

|USVol=489

|USPage=255

|ParallelCitations=109 S. Ct. 1038, 103 L.Ed.2d 308

|Docket=

|OralArgument=

|Prior=822 F.2d 684 (CA7 1987)

|Subsequent=

|Holding=The "plain statement rule" of Michigan v. Long is not limited to cases on direct review in this Court, but extends as well to cases on federal habeas review.

|Majority=Blackmun

|JoinMajority=Rehnquist, Brennan, White, Marshall, Stevens, O'Connor, Scalia

|Concurrence=Stevens

|JoinConcurrence=

|Concurrence2=O'Connor

|JoinConcurrence2=Rehnquist, Scalia

|Concurrence/Dissent=

|JoinConcurrence/Dissent=

|Dissent=Kennedy

|JoinDissent=

|Dissent2=

|JoinDissent2=

|LawsApplied=

}}

Harris v. Reed, {{ussc|489|255|1989}}, is a 1989 United States Supreme Court case in which the court held that the plain statement rule of Michigan v. Long applies to federal habeas proceedings originating from state court judgments. This rule prohibits federal courts from reviewing questions of federal law in state court decisions if the state court opinion contains a "plain statement" that its decision is based on an "adequate and independent state ground".{{Cite journal |last=Halper |first=Jason |date=1989-01-01 |title=Harris v. Reed: A New Look at Federal Habeas Jurisdiction over State Petitioners |url=https://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/flr/vol58/iss3/7/ |journal=Fordham Law Review |volume=58 |issue=3 |pages=493}}{{Cite journal |last=Dooley |first=Laura |date=1991-01-01 |title=Equal Protection and the Procedural Bar Doctrine in Federal Habeas Corpus |url=https://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/flr/vol59/iss5/2/ |journal=Fordham Law Review |volume=59 |issue=5 |pages=737}}