The holding of Teague, which limits the kinds of constitutional violations that entitle an individual to federal habeas corpus relief, does not limit the authority of a state court to provide a remedy for violation deemed retroactive by Teague. eague is based on statutory authority that extends only to federal courts applying a federal statute; it cannot be read as imposing a binding obligation on state courts. The Teague rule was intended to limit federal courts' authority to overturn state convictions, not to limit a state court's authority to grant relief for violations of new constitutional law rules when reviewing its own state's convictions. Danforth v. Minnesota, 06–8273 [1].