AEDPA ruling from SCOTUS today

Because I am not a habeas or AEDPA guru, I am not sure of the broad significance of the Supreme Court’s 5-4 ruling today in Pace v. DiGuglielmo, which held, in the words of Lyle Denniston here at SCOTUSblog, that a “post-conviction claim filed in state court, found by a state court to be out of time, does not stop the running of the time for filing a federal habeas petition under AEDPA.”  I am inclined to speculate that this ruling (which was authored by the Chief Justice and divided the Court along its “traditional” conservative/liberal lines) could possibly impact when and how some state defendants can bring Blakely claims or other challenges to state sentencing practices in federal court. 

I hope commentors might explain whether Pace is consequential, though I will quote from Justice Stevens’ dissent (with citations omitted) which sets out his view of the case’s impact:

[T]he most likely consequence of the Court’s new rule will be to increase, not reduce, delays in the federal system. The inevitable result of today’s decision will be a flood of protective filings in the federal district courts…. The Court admits that this type of protective filing will result from its holding. I fail to see any merit in a rule that knowingly and unnecessarily adds to the burdens on the district courts in a way that simple tolling would not.