The purpose of this article is to place the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (AEDPA) of 1996 within a political and historical framework that describes the effort by the Supreme Court and various interested parties to restrict prisoners’ access to the federal courts by way of habeas corpus. Of principal concern here is how an act of terrorism against the United States provides an opportunity for Congress to restrict death row prisoners from obtaining habeas corpus review. Along with an analysis of Supreme Court decisions, three attempts to limit federal habeas corpus review for state prisoners from the late 1980s to the middle 1990s are described, all of which helped Congress to pass the AEDPA, a law that ratified the Supreme Court’s most restrictive habeas corpus decisions dating back some 35 years.
Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act, Pub. L. No. 104-132, 110 Stat. 1214 (1996).
5.
Arkin, M. (1995). The ghost at the banquet: Slavery, federalism, and habeas corpus for state prisoners. Tulane Law Review, 70, 1-73.
6.
Balbus, I. (1973). The dialectics of legal repression: Black rebels before the American criminal courts. New York: Russell Sage.
7.
Bandes, S. (1996). Simple murder: A comment on the legality of executing the innocent. Buffalo Law Review, 44, 501-525.
8.
Bedau, H. A. (Ed.). (1997). The death penalty in America: Current controversies. New York: Oxford University Press.
9.
Berger, V. (1990). Justice delayed or justice denied?—A comment on recent proposals to reform death penalty habeas corpus. Columbia Law Review, 90, 1665-1714.
10.
Berke, R. (1990, October 29). Congress adjourns. The New York Times, p. A1-A1.
11.
Bright, S. B. (1994). Counsel for the poor: The death sentence not for the worst crime but for the worst lawyer. Yale Law Journal, 103, 1835-1883.
12.
Bright, S. B. (2001).Will the death penalty remain alive in the twenty-first century? International norms, discrimination, arbitrariness, and the risk of executing the innocent. Wisconsin Law Review, 2001, 1-27.
13.
Brown v. Allen, 344 U.S. 443 (1953).
14.
Brown v. Mississippi, 297 U.S. 278 (1936).
15.
Chafee, Z. (1952). How humanrights got into the Constitution. Boston: Boston University Press.
16.
Chambers v. Florida, 309 U.S. 227 (1940).
17.
Coleman v. Thompson, 501 U.S. 722 (1991).
18.
Collins, M. (1992). Whose Federalism?Constitutional Commentary, 9, 75-86.
Dicey, A. V. (1961). Introduction to the study of the law of the Constitution (10th ed.). London: Macmillan.
23.
Dow, D. (1995/1996). The state, the death penalty, and Carl Johnson. Boston College Law Review, 37, 691-711.
24.
Drury v. Lewis, 200 U.S. 1 (1906).
25.
Duckworth v. Eagan, 492 U.S. 195 (1989).
26.
Engle v. Isaac, 456 U.S. 107 (1982).
27.
Eskridge, W. (1991). Reneging on history? Playing the court/Congress/president civil rights game. California Law Review, 79, 613-864.
28.
Ex parte Kearney, 20 U.S. 38 (1822).
29.
Ex parte Royall, 117 U.S. 241 (1886).
30.
Ex parte Watkins, 28 U.S. 193 (1830).
31.
Faust, R., Rubenstein, T., & Yackle, L. (1990/1991). The great writ in action: Empirical light on the federal habeas corpus debate. New York University Review of Law and Social Change, 18, 637-710.
32.
Fay v. Noia, 372 U.S. 391 (1963).
33.
Felker v. Turpin, 518 U.S. 651 (1996).
34.
Fliter, J. (2001). Prisoners’ rights: The Supreme Court and evolving standards of decency. Westport, CT: Greenwood.
35.
Forbath, W. (1991). Law and the shaping of the American labor movement. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
36.
Frank v. Mangum, 237 U.S. 309 (1915).
37.
Friendly, H. (1970). Is innocence irrelevant? Collateral attack on criminal judgments. University of Chicago Law Review, 38, 142-172.
38.
Gregg v. Georgia, 428 U.S. 153 (1976).
39.
Habeas Corpus Acts. (1815-1867). Act of Feb. 4, 1815, c. 31, 3 Stat. 105; Act of March 3, 1815, c. 94, 3 Stat. 231; Act of March 2, 1833, c.57, 4 Stat. 632; Act of Aug. 23, 1842, c. 188, 5 Stat. 516; Act of March 3, 1863, c. 81, 12 Stat. 755; Act of Feb. 5, 1867, c. 27, 14 Stat. 385.
40.
Habeas Corpus in State and Federal Courts. (1994). Williamsburg, VA: National Center for State Courts.
41.
Habeas Corpus Reform. (1990). Hearings before the Committee of the Judiciary, United States Senate, 101 Congress, 1st and 2nd sessions. Nov. 8, 1989; Feb. 21, 1990. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.
42.
Hale v. Henkel, 201 U.S.43 (1906).
43.
Hans Nielsen, petitioner, 131 U.S. 176 (1888).
44.
Harlan v. McGourin, 218 U.S. 442 (1908).
45.
Herrera v. Collins, 506 U.S. 390 (1993).
46.
Higgs, R. (1987). Crisis and Leviathan: Critical episodes in the growth of American government. New York: Oxford University Press.
47.
Hoffmann, J. (1989). The Supreme Court’s new vision of federal habeas corpus for state prisoners. Supreme Court Review, 1989, 165-193.
48.
Holden v. Hardy, 198 U.S. 366 (1898).
49.
Hurst, J. W. (1956). Law and the conditions of freedom in the nineteenth-century United States. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.
50.
Hurtado v. California, 110 U.S. 516 (1884).
51.
Hyde v. Shine, 199 U.S. 84 (1904).
52.
Idelson, H. (1996). Terrorism bill is headed to president’s desk. Congressional Quarterly Weekly Report, 54(16), 1044-1046.
53.
Ignani, J., Meernik, J., & King, K. L. (1998). Statutory construction and congressional response. American Politics Quarterly, 26(4), 459-484.
54.
In re Frederich, 149 U.S. 703 (1892).
55.
In re Kemmler, 136 U.S.436 (1890).
56.
In re Lincoln, 202 U.S. 178 (1905).
57.
In re Loney, 134 U.S. 372 (1889).
58.
In re Shibuya Jugiro, 140 U.S. 291 (1891).
59.
In re Snow, 120 U.S. 274 (1887).
60.
In re Wood, 140 U.S. 278 (1890).
61.
Kappler, B. (2000). Small favors: Chapter 154 of the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act, the states, and the right to counsel. Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 90(2), 467-598.
62.
Karlen, D. (1967). Anglo-American criminal justice. New York: Oxford University Press.
63.
Kaufman v. United States, 394 U.S. 217 (1969).
64.
Kimmelman v. Morrison, 477 U.S. 365 (1986).
65.
Kirchmeier, J. (1996). Drink, drugs, and drowsiness: The constitutional right to effective assistance of counsel and the Strickland prejudice requirement. Nebraska Law Review, 75, 425-475.
66.
Kobil, D. (1990/1991). The quality of mercy strained: Wresting the pardon power from the king. University of Texas Law Review, 69, 569-641.
67.
Koizo v. Henry, 211 U.S. 146 (1908).
68.
Law & Contemporary Problems. (1998). Appendix: American Bar Association resolution (February 3, 1997). 61, 219-231.
69.
Liebman, J. (1990/1991). More than “slightly retro:” The Rehnquist Court’s rout of habeas corpus jurisdiction in Teague v. Lane. New York University Review of Law and Social Change, 18, 537-635.
70.
Liebman, J., Fagan, J., & Valerie, W. (2000). A broken system: Error rates in capital cases, 1973-1995. The Justice Project. Retrieved June 30, 2004, from http://justice.policy.net/proactive/documents/printerfriendly/printerfriendly?docid=18200&PROACTIVE_ID=cececfc7c7ccc7cbc9c5cecfcfcfc5cececacec8cfcac9c8cdc5cf
71.
Litwack, L. (1998). Trouble in mind: Black Southerners in the age of Jim Crow. New York: Knopf.
72.
Lucie, P. A. (1986). Freedom and federalism: Congress and courts, 1861-1866. New York: Garland.
73.
Mackey v. United States, 401 U.S. 667 (1971).
74.
Maxwell v. Dow, 176 U.S. 581 (1900).
75.
Mello, M. (1987/1988). Facing death alone: The post-conviction attorney crisis on death row. American University Law Review, 37, 513-607.
76.
Mello, M., & Duffy, D. (1990/1991). Suspending justice: The unconstitutionality of the proposed six-month time limit on the filing of habeas corpus petitions by state death row inmates. New York University Review of Law and Social Change, 18, 451-498.
77.
Moore v. Dempsey, 261 U.S. 86 (1923).
78.
Murray v. Carrier, 427 U.S. 478 (1986).
79.
Murray v. Giarratano, 492 U.S. 1 (1989).
80.
NAACP Legal Defense & Educational Fund. (2001). Death row, U.S.A. Retrieved June 30, 2004, from www.naacpldf.org/content.pdf/pubs/drusa/DRUSA-Fall01.pdf
81.
Nedelsky, J. (1990). Private property and the limits of American constitutionalism: The Madisonian framework and its legacy. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
82.
Oaks, D. (1964/1965). Habeas corpus in the states: 1776-1865. University of Chicago Law Review, 32, 243-288.
83.
O’Connor, S. D. (1980/1981). Trends in the relationship between the federal and state courts from the perspective of a state court judge. William & Mary Law Review, 22, 801-819.
84.
Omnibus Counterterrorism Act of 1995, H.R. 896, S. 390, 104th Congress (1995).
85.
Orfield, G. (1995). Congress and civil rights: From obstacle to protector. In J. H. Franklin & G. R. McNeil (Eds.), African Americans and the living Constitution (pp. 144-180). Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institution.
86.
Peller, G. (1981/1982). In defense of federal habeas corpus relitigation. Harvard Civil Rights-Civil Liberties Law Review, 16, 579-691.
87.
Penry v. Lynaugh, 492 U.S. 302 (1990).
88.
Powell, L. (1988/1989). Capital punishment. Harvard Law Review, 102, 1035-1046.
Robbins, I. (1990/1991).Toward a more just and effective system of review in state death penalty cases. American University Law Review, 40, 1-296.
92.
Rose v. Lundy, 455 U.S. 509 (1982).
93.
Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad, 118 U.S. 394 (1886).
94.
Sarat, A. (2001). When the state kills: Capital punishment and the American condition. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
95.
Sawyer v. Smith, 497 U.S. 227 (1990).
96.
Schneckloth v. Bustamonte, 412 U.S. 218 (1973).
97.
Sessions, P. (1996/1997). Swift justice? Imposing a statute of limitations on the federal habeas corpus petitions of state prisoners. Southern California Law Review, 70, 1513-1569.
98.
Smith, R. (1997). America tries to come to terms with terrorism: The United States’Anti-Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 v. British Anti-Terrorism Law and international response. Cardozo Journal of International and Comparative Law, 5, 249-290.
99.
Smith v. Murray, 477 U.S. 527 (1986).
100.
Steiker, J. (2000). Habeas exceptionalism. Texas Law Review, 78, 1703-1730.
101.
Steinmo, S., Thelen, K., & Longstreth, F. (1992). Structuring politics: Historical institutionalism in comparative analysis. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
102.
Stone v. Powell, 428 U.S. 465 (1976).
103.
Stummer, C. (2001).To be or not to be: Opt-in status under the Antiterrorismand Effective Death Penalty Act. Vermont Law Review, 25, 603-647.
104.
Teague v. Lane, 489 U.S. 288 (1989).
105.
Thomas, J. (1988). Prisoner litigation: The paradox of the jailhouse lawyer. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.
106.
Tinsley v. Treat, 205 U.S. 20 (1906).
107.
Townsend v. Sain, 430 U.S. 387 (1963).
108.
Toy Toy v. Hopkins, 212 U.S. 542 (1908).
109.
Tushnet, M., & Yackle, L. (1997/1998). Symbolic statutes and real laws: The pathologies of the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act and the Prison Litigation Reform Act. Duke Law Journal, 47, 1-86.
110.
Twining v. New Jersey, 212 U.S. 78 (1908).
111.
Tyler v. Cain, 121 S. Ct. 2478 (2001).
112.
U.S. Department of Justice. (1988, May 27). Office of legal policy. Report to the attorney general on federal habeas corpus review of state judgments. Washington, DC: Author.
113.
Wabash, St. Louis, & Pacific Railway Co. v. Illinois, 118 U.S. 557 (1886).
114.
Wade, E. C. S., & Philips, G. G. (1960). Constitutional law (6th ed.). London: Longmans.
115.
Wade v. Mayo, 334 U.S. 672 (1948).
116.
Wainwright v. Sykes, 433 U.S. 72 (1977).
117.
Warren, C. (1926). The Supreme Court in United States history (Rev. ed., vol. II). Boston: Little, Brown.
118.
Weisselberg, C. (1990). Evidentiary hearings in federal habeas corpus cases. Brigham Young University Law Review, 1990, 131-181.
119.
Wiecek, W. (1977). The sources of antislavery constitutionalism in America, 1760-1848. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
120.
Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S. 420 (2000).
121.
Winkle, J. (1985). Judges as lobbyists: Habeas corpus reform in the 1940s. Judicature, 68, 263-272.
122.
Withrow v. Williams, 507 U.S. 680 (1993).
123.
Yackle, L. (1983). The Reagan Administration’s habeas corpus proposals. Iowa Law Review, 68, 609-666.
124.
Yackle, L. (1994). Reclaiming the federal courts. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
125.
Yackle, L. (1996). A primer on the new habeas statute. Buffalo Law Review, 44, 381-449.
