Document Type

Article

Publication Title

California Law Review

Abstract

Nearly two decades ago, the Supreme Court began an effort to reform habeas corpus. Despite academic criticism, congressional displeasure, and internal disagreement, the Court's effort to limit the availability of habeas relief is still ongoing. Much has been written about whether the Court is pursuing the correct goals in its reform effort. This Article accepts the Court's own goals-fairness, finality, federalism, and judicial economyas a given. Rather than evaluating the Supreme Court's habeas reform by an independent normative standard, Professor Friedman examines whether the reform effort advances the very goals it is designed to further. The author suggests that habeas reforms have not resulted in greater finality. Instead, the reforms have generated unwarranted doctrinal complexity, directed judicial inquiry from the merits to procedural issues, produced uncertainty, and increased litigation-all to the detriment of finality. In addition, the interests of federalism and comity have been hindered, not helped. Reform efforts have increased the intrusiveness offederal review and created additional work for state courts. As far as the goal ofjudicial economy, federal courts must now consider a host of new procedural issues of little precedential or substantive value. Thus, the Court's habeas reform has not only increased the workload of state courts, but that of federal courts as well. Finally, all of the reforms have come at the cost of fairness- the very value the writ was designed to serve. In short, fairness is sacrificed without any of the Court's goals actually being advanced. Given this state of affairs, the author concludes that the reform effort has been a failure.

First Page

485

DOI

https://doi.org/10.15779/Z38K43N

Volume

83

Publication Date

1995

Download

Share

COinS