Judicial Policy Making and Habeas Corpus Reform

Abstract

After Chief Justice William Rehnquist failed in his efforts to persuade Congress to reform habeas corpus procedures, a majority of justices on the Rehnquist Court used judicial decisions to reshape habeas procedures in a manner that made it more difficult for convicted offenders to have their cases successfully reviewed by federal judges. A purported justification for habeas corpus reform is to reduce the workload burden imposed by these cases on the federal district courts. A survey of U.S. magistrate judges, who bear primary responsibility for habeas cases in many district courts, reveals that judicially-initiated habeas reforms have not reduced workloads and, in fact, have increased the work required to process prisoners' petitions in many courts. Like judicial policy makers in other contexts, the Rehnquist Court justices failed to anticipate accurately the consequences of their habeas reform decisions, even though they were affecting policies within their own branch of government.