| Litigants: | Teague v. Lane |
| Arguedate: | October 4 |
| Argueyear: | 1988 |
| Decidedate: | February 22 |
| Decideyear: | 1989 |
| Fullname: | Frank Teague v. Michael P. Lane (Director of Illinois Department of Corrections) and Michael O'Leary (Warden of Stateville Correctional Center) |
| Usvol: | 489 |
| Uspage: | 288 |
| Parallelcitations: | 109 S. Ct. 1060; 103 L. Ed. 2d 334 |
| Prior: | Habeas corpus petition denied by District Court; reversed, 779 F.2d 1332 (7th Cir. 1985); affirmed on rehearing en banc, 820 F.2d 832 (7th Cir. 1987). |
| Subsequent: | None |
| Holding: | In habeas corpus proceedings, only a limited set of important substantive or procedural rights will be enforced retroactively or announced prospectively. |
| Majority: | O'Connor |
| Joinmajority: | Rehnquist, White, Scalia and Kennedy (Parts I, II, III); Blackmun, Stevens (Part II only) |
| Plurality: | O'Connor |
| Joinplurality: | Rehnquist, Scalia, Kennedy (Parts IV and V) |
| Concurrence: | White (in part in the judgment) |
| Concurrence2: | Blackmun (in part and in the judgment) |
| Concurrence3: | Stevens (in part and in the judgment) |
| Joinconcurrence3: | Blackmun (Part I only) |
| Dissent: | Brennan |
| Joindissent: | Marshall |
| Overruled: | Edwards v. Vannoy (2021) (in part) |
Teague v. Lane, 489 U.S. 288 (1989), was a United States Supreme Court case dealing with the application of newly announced rules of law in habeas corpus proceedings. This case addresses the Federal Court's threshold standard of deciding whether Constitutional claims will be heard. Application of the "Teague test" at the most basic level limits habeas corpus.
The appeal was from a black defendant who was convicted by an all white jury in Illinois in a state court located in Cook County. The prosecutor had used all 10 of his peremptory challenges to exclude African American jurors but claimed he was trying to get a balance of men and women on the jury.
The majority held that the actions of the prosecutor did not follow contemporary criminal procedure but that the Batson challenge principle should not be applied retroactively.