Alito, J., dissenting
fairly included within those on which the Court granted review. On the contrary, it is an entirely discrete and independent question.
Counsel’s tactics flagrantly flouted our Rules. Our Rules make it clear that we grant certiorari to decide the specific question or questions of law set out in a petition for certiorari. See this Court’s Rule 14.1(a) (“Only the questions set out in the petition, or fairly included therein, will be considered by the Court”). Our whole certiorari system would be thrown into turmoil if we allowed counsel to obtain review of one question and then switch to an entirely different question after review is granted. In the past when counsel have done this, we have dismissed the writ as improvidently granted. See, e. g., Visa, Inc. v. Osborn, 580 U. S. ___ (2016); City and County of San Francisco v. Sheehan, 575 U. S. ___ (2015). We should do that here.
Instead, the majority rewards counsel’s trick. It vacates the judgment below because it is unsure whether the state court committed the error claimed in petitioner’s merits brief. But not only was there no trace of this argument in the petition, there is nothing in the record showing that the state court ever adopted the erroneous view that petitioner claims it took.
I
The question on which we granted review was an outgrowth of our per curiam decision in Dunn v. Madison, 583 U. S. ___ (2017), which concerned an Eleventh Circuit decision granting petitioner federal habeas relief. Prior to that decision, this Court had held in Ford v. Wainwright, 477 U. S. 399 (1986), that the Eighth Amendment prohibits the execution of a person who is “insane,” and in Panetti v. Quarterman, 551 U. S. 930 (2007), the Court elaborated on this rule, explaining that a person cannot be executed if he lacks a rational understanding of the reason for the
