1. Does a rule announced in a four-Justice plurality opinion constitute a holding of this Court, and therefore "clearly established Federal law" under § 2254(d)(1), when no other Justice adopted—either explicitly or implicitly—the plurality's rule or any reasoning supporting that rule?

2. Did the Sixth Circuit violate § 2254(d)(1)'s strict limitations when it independently analyzed the prejudice prong of an ineffective-assistance claim without addressing the state court's prejudice analysis or explaining why the state court's opposite conclusion was "beyond any possibility for fairminded disagreement"?

Does a rule announced in a four-Justice plurality opinion constitute a holding of this Court, and therefore 'clearly established Federal law' under § 2254(d)(1), when no other Justice adopted—either explicitly or implicitly—the plurality's rule or any reasoning supporting that rule?