The Supreme Court of the United States issued two decisions this morning:

Bobby v. Dixon, No. 10-1540: Under the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act, a state prisoner seeking a writ of habeas corpus from a federal court “must show that the state court’s ruling . . . was so lacking in justification that there was an error . . . beyond any possibility for fairminded disagreement.” The Sixth Circuit purported to identify three such errors in the Ohio Supreme Court’s affirmance of respondent’s murder conviction. Holding that “it is not clear that the Ohio Supreme Court erred at all, much less erred so transparently that no fairminded jurist could agree with that court’s decision,” the Supreme Court today reversed the Sixth Circuit’s judgment in a per curiam opinion.

The Court’s opinion is available here.

KPMG LLP v. Cocchi, No. 10-1521: The Federal Arbitration Act has been interpreted to require that if a dispute presents multiple claims, some arbitrable and some not, the former must be sent to arbitration even if this will lead to piecemeal litigation.

In this case a Florida state appellate court upheld a trial court’s refusal to compel arbitration of respondents’ claims after determining that two of the four claims in a complaint were nonarbitrable. Although noting that “the matter is not altogether free from doubt,” the Supreme Court held today in a per curiam opinion that a fair reading of the appellate court’s decision indicated a likelihood that it had failed to determine whether the other two claims in the complaint were arbitrable. For this reason, the judgment was vacated, and the case was remanded for further proceedings.

The Court’s opinion is available here.

The Supreme Court also granted review in three cases today, two of which present essentially the same question and were ordered to be argued in tandem:

Magner v. Gallagher, No. 10-1032: Are disparate impact claims cognizable under the Fair Housing Act?

Miller v. Alabama, No. 10-9646, to be argued in tandem with Jackson v. Hobbs, No. 10-9647: Does imposition of a life-without-parole sentence on a 14-year old convicted of homicide violate the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendment prohibitions on cruel and unusual punishment?