concurring in part and dissenting in part.
I agree with Judge Melloy that all of Weaver’s claims are subject to review' under the AEDPA standard and concur in Part III of his opinion. But because I do not think that the Court correctly applies that standard to Weaver’s claims of prose-cutorial misconduct, I respectfully dissent. Under 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1), as amended by AEDPA, we must accept a state court’s decision on the merits of a claim later raised in federal habeas proceedings unless that decision “was contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States.” The Court today, purporting to apply the AEDPA standard, holds that habeas relief must be granted to Weaver on his sentence.
The Court notes that several of Weaver’s claims are “factually unique” or “factually distinct,” presumably when compared to habeas claims adjudicated by the Supreme Court to date. Ante at 839, 840. These factual distinctions alone raise red flags. I propose that it is less likely that a state court’s decision will be contrary to or an unreasonable application of clearly established federal law when there are no Supreme Court cases bn all fours. Moreover, the law that the Court cites today as on point is found in opinions from this Circuit, not in opinions from the Supreme Court. “[A]s the statutory language makes clear, ... § 2254(d)(1) restricts the source of clearly established law to [the Supreme] Court’s jurisprudence.” Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S. 362, 412, 120 S.Ct. 1495, 146 L.Ed.2d 389 (2000).
The Supreme Court cases to which the Court does refer in its opinion stand for general propositions: “[a] prosecutor’s argument violates due process if it ‘infect[s] the trial with unfairness,’ ” ante at 840 (quoting Darden v. Wainwright, 477 U.S. 168, 181, 106 S.Ct. 2464, 91 L.Ed.2d 144 (1986)); the Eighth Amendment requires that a jury not be precluded from exercising its discretion, ante at 840 (citing Zant v. Stephens, 462 U.S. 862, 879, 103 S.Ct. 2733, 77 L.Ed.2d 235 (1983) (noting the requirement in capital cases for an “individualized determination” of those defendants who should receive the ultimate penalty “on the basis of the character of the individual and the circumstances of the crime”)); and there is a need for “an individualized decision-making process” so that a death sentence will pass constitutional muster, ante at 841 (citing Supreme Court cases at 11-12). None of the Supreme Court cases cited in the Court’s opinion touches on the distinct claims of prosecutorial misconduct on which the writ was granted.
In these circumstances, I cannot agree that the Missouri Supreme Court’s decision on the issue of the prosecutor’s penalty-phase argument is contrary to or an unreasonable application of clearly established federal law as determined by the *845Supreme Court. Were it not for the AED-PA standard of review, I might agree with the result reached by the Court today. Indeed, the outcome was different — where we did not apply the AEDPA standard — in our § 2254 review of Weaver’s co-defendant’s death sentence on grounds of improper prosecutorial closing argument in the penalty phase. Shurn v. Delo, 177 F.3d 662, 665-67 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 528 U.S. 1010, 120 S.Ct. 510, 145 L.Ed.2d 395 (1999); see also Newlon v. Armontrout, 885 F.2d 1328 (8th Cir.1989) (affirming pre-AEDPA grant of the writ on grounds of improper prosecutorial argument), cert. denied, 497 U.S. 1038, 110 S.Ct. 3301, 111 L.Ed.2d 810 (1990). But under AEDPA, we are not empowered to grant the writ even though we may believe that the state court got it wrong. A state-court decision is not necessarily unreasonable because the federal habeas courts deem it to be incorrect. Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S. at 411, 120 S.Ct. 1495. “A federal court may not overrule a state court for simply holding a view different from its own, when the precedent from [the Supreme] Court is, at best, ambiguous.” Mitchell v. Esparza, 540 U.S. 12, 17, 124 S.Ct. 7, 157 L.Ed.2d 263 (2003) (expounding the “contrary to” standard). The only issue for the federal courts in this case is whether the state court’s decision was contrary to or an unreasonable application of clearly established federal law. Because of the apparent inconclusive state of Supreme Court jurisprudence on the alleged constitutional violation in this case (the Court cites no apposite Supreme Court cases), I would hold that the state court’s decision was neither contrary to nor an objectively unreasonable application of federal law and would reverse the judgment of the District Court.