On March 21, 2018, the Supreme Court issued its decision in Ayestas v. Davis, 584 U.S. ___ (March 21, 2018). This case concerns the denial of funding to a habeas petitioner. The Supreme Court assumes, without deciding, that a COA is required to appeal the denial of funds and finds that the rule applied by the district court in denying funding was not only debatable but actually erroneous. It further finds that the district court’s ruling on the funding request was not an administrative decision such that the court of appeals and the Supreme Court lacked jurisdiction to hear the appeal. Turning to the merits, the Supreme Court held that the lower courts applied the wrong legal standard when denying petitioner funds under 18 U.S.C. §3599(f). The statute authorizes funding that is “reasonably necessary” for the representation of an applicant. The Fifth Circuit’s requirement that an applicant establish a “substantial need” for the funding was arguably more demanding than the statute requires. The Fifth Circuit exacerbated the problem by invoking precedent that a habeas petitioner seeking funding must present “a viable constitutional claim that is not procedurally barred.” This precedent is too restrictive after Trevino v. Thaler. What the statutory phrase calls for is a determination by the district court, in the exercise of its discretion, as to whether a reasonable attorney would regard the services as sufficiently important. In making this assessment, the district court is “to consider the potential merit of the claims that the applicant wants to pursue, the likelihood that the services will generate useful and admissible evidence, and the prospect that the applicant will be able to clear any procedural hurdles standing in the way.” The Supreme Court declines to address the respondent’s argument, which was not presented below, that funding is never “reasonably necessary” in a case like this one, where a habeas petitioner seeks to present a procedurally defaulted ineffective-assistance-of -trial-counsel claim that will depend on facts outside the state-court record. This is because, according to respondent, the fruits of the federally funded investigation would be inadmissible under 28 U.S.C. §2254(e)(2). This argument remains open to be raised in the Fifth Circuit on remand.