The Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (AEDPA) did not abrogate Stone v. Powell (1976) 428 U.S. 465, 494. Newman filed a federal habeas petition challenging his state rape conviction on Fourth Amendment grounds. The district court denied the petition citing Stone. Newman appealed. Held: Affirmed. Stone held “where the State has provided an opportunity for full and fair litigation of a Fourth Amendment claim, a state prisoner may not be granted federal habeas corpus relief on the ground that evidence obtained in an unconstitutional search or seizure was introduced at his trial.” Newman, however, argued that Stone did not survive the passage of the AEDPA. Although a district court in West Virginia has held that AEDPA abrogated Stone (Carlson v. Ferguson (S.D.W. Va. 1998) 9 F.Supp.2d 654, 565-657), both the Seventh and Tenth Circuits have held that Stone survives AEDPA. (Hampton v. Wyant (7th Cir. 2002) 296 F.3d 560; Herrera v. Lemaster (10th Cir. 2000) 225 F.3d 1176.) AEDPA was intended to further narrow the availability of federal habeas relief and was not intended to abrogate decisions that had already narrowed it. Furthermore, “Stone survives because we do not engage in anticipatory overruling of Supreme Court precedent.” Since Newman received a full and fair opportunity to litigate his Fourth Amendment claim in state court, federal habeas relief was unavailable under Stone.