The federalism debate in the transformation of federal Habeas Corpus law

Publius: The Journal of Federalism

Volumn 27, Issue 3, 1997, Pages 1-22

  Harriger, Katy J ^a  

^a NONE

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 0038909622     PISSN: 00485950     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1093/oxfordjournals.pubjof.a029917     Document Type: Article

References (101)

1. Robert G. McCloskey, The American Supreme Court, 2nd ed., revised by Sanford Levinson (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1994); Richard L. Pacelle, Jr., The Transformation of the Supreme Court's Agenda (Boulder, CO: Westview Press, 1991); and Howard Gillman, The Constitution Besieged: The Rise and Demise of Lochner Era Police Powers Jurisprudence (Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 1993).
2. Robert G. McCloskey, The American Supreme Court, 2nd ed., revised by Sanford Levinson (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1994); Richard L. Pacelle, Jr., The Transformation of the Supreme Court's Agenda (Boulder, CO: Westview Press, 1991); and Howard Gillman, The Constitution Besieged: The Rise and Demise of Lochner Era Police Powers Jurisprudence (Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 1993).
3. Robert G. McCloskey, The American Supreme Court, 2nd ed., revised by Sanford Levinson (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1994); Richard L. Pacelle, Jr., The Transformation of the Supreme Court's Agenda (Boulder, CO: Westview Press, 1991); and Howard Gillman, The Constitution Besieged: The Rise and Demise of Lochner Era Police Powers Jurisprudence (Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 1993).
4. New York v. United States, 505 U.S. 144 (1992); United States v. Lopez, 115 S.Ct. 1624 (1995).
5. These documents are available in the Thurgood Marshall and William O. Douglas papers housed at the Library of Congress, Manuscripts Division, Washington, D.C. This article's use of the papers was supported by travel grants from the American Political Science Association and the Research and Creative Activities Fund at Wake Forest University. In using the internal memoranda and opinion drafts, the author sought to discover how the authors of opinions initially framed their arguments and whether those arguments were changed in subsequent drafts in response to requests from other members of the Court. The assumption was that one can gain a better understanding of the process of legal change by examining internal court dynamics. This admittedly is an inexact science, given the reliance on the written record and the possibility of interpretative error. Undoubtedly, unrecorded conversations also have an impact on the construction of argument. It appears safe to assume that when a particular judge requests a change in writing and that change appears in the next draft of the opinion, then the author has been influenced by the request.
6. Raoul Berger, Federalism: The Founders' Design (Norman, OK: University of Oklahoma Press, 1987), pp. 21-79.
7. John C. Miller, The Federalist Era: 1789-1801 (NewYork: Harper & Row, 1960).
8. David J. Bodenhamer, Fair Trial: Rights of the Accused In American History (New York: Oxford University Press, 1992), pp. 67-91.
9. John Kincaid, "Constitutional Federalism: Labor's Role in Displacing Places to Benefit Persons," PS: Political Science and Politics 26 (June 1993): 172-177
10. Bodenhamer, Fair Trial, pp. 109-128; McCloskey, The American Supreme Court, pp. 157-160.
11. Bodenhamer, Fair Trial, pp. 109-128; McCloskey, The American Supreme Court, pp. 157-160.
12. Ex Parte Merryman, Fed. Case No. 9487 (1861).
13. Bodenhamer, Fair Trial, pp. 71-72.
14. Brown v. Allen, 344 U.S. 443, 496 (Justice Felix Frankfurter opinion, 1953).
15. 344 U.S. 443 (1953).
16. Ibid., 498-499.
17. 372 U.S. 391 (1963).
18. For an extensive discussion of the case law and its implications, see Joseph L. Hoffman and William J. Stuntz, "Habeas After the Revolution," Supreme Court Review (1993): 65-123; Larry W. Yackle, Reclaiming the Federal Courts (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1994).
19. For an extensive discussion of the case law and its implications, see Joseph L. Hoffman and William J. Stuntz, "Habeas After the Revolution," Supreme Court Review (1993): 65-123; Larry W. Yackle, Reclaiming the Federal Courts (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1994).
20. The Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996. Public Law 104-132, 110 Stat. 1217. Major habeas corpus provisions were incorporated into an antiterrorism bill pushed by the Clinton administration in the wake of the Oklahoma City bombing. Holly Idelson, "Terrorism Bill is Headed to President's Desk," Congressional Quarterly Weekly Report 54 (20 April 1996): 1044-1046.
21. Felker v. Turpin, 116 S.Ct. 2333 (1996).
22. Ronald Kahn calls these arguments about "polity and rights principles." Ronald Kahn, The Supreme Court and Constitutional Theory: 1953-1993 (Lawrence, KS: University Press of Kansas, 1994).
23. Richard L. Pacelle, Jr., "The Dynamics and Determinants of Agenda Change in the Rehnquist Court," Contemplating Courts, ed. Lee Epstein (Washington, D.C.: Congressional Quarterly, 1995), pp. 251-274.
24. 111 S.Ct. 2456, 2552 (1991).
25. The significance of the U.S. Supreme Court argument in sending cues to interested parties, and thus, promoting legal change, is discussed in detail in Lee Epstein and Joseph F. Kobylka, The Supreme Courtand Legal Change (Chapel Hill, NC: University of North Carolina Press, 1992).
26. Markus Dirk Dubber, "Prudence and Substance: How the Supreme Court's New Habeas Retroactivity Doctrine Mirrors and Affects Substantive Constitutional Law," American Criminal Law Review 30 (1992-1993): 1-33.
27. Bench Memorandum, Fay v. Noia, 1961 Term, No. 809, Box 1280. Argued Memos, William O. Douglas Papers, Manuscript Division, 30 April 1962, Library of Congress, Washington, D.C.
28. William O. Douglas, Conference Notes, 11 January 1963; Ibid.
29. Fay v. Noia, 399.
30. Ibid., 424.
31. Ibid., 438-440.
32. Ibid., 445-447.
33. Ibid., 448-449.
34. Ibid., 476.
35. Gene R. Nichol, "Backing Into the Future: The Burger Court and the Federal Forum," Kansas Law Review 30 (1982): 341-383.
36. David F. Cerf, Jr., "The Federal Habeas Corpus Act and the Recent Amendments to the Act Limiting Its Use and Abuse by State Prisoners," University of Miami Law Review 22 (Winter 1967): 409-423.
37. Ibid., 418.
38. Cerf, "The Federal Habeas Corpus Act and the Recent Amendments," 420-422.
39. In Sanders v. United States, 373 U.S. 1, 11-12 (1963) the Court suggested that construing the habeas corpus statute more narrowly "might raise serious constitutional questions" about the validity of the statute.
40. Paul M. Bator, "Finality in Criminal Law and Federal Habeas Corpus for State Prisoners," Harvard Law Review 76 (January 1963): 441-528. Cerf called this article "the leading discussion" of the Court's opinions. Cerf, "The Federal Habeas Corpus Act and the Recent Amendments," 409. See also, Yackle, Reclaiming the Federal Courts, who contends that Bator's article is the intellectual foundation for the "legal process" approach of most of the Court's recent decisions restricting access to the federal courts.
41. Paul M. Bator, "Finality in Criminal Law and Federal Habeas Corpus for State Prisoners," Harvard Law Review 76 (January 1963): 441-528. Cerf called this article "the leading discussion" of the Court's opinions. Cerf, "The Federal Habeas Corpus Act and the Recent Amendments," 409. See also, Yackle, Reclaiming the Federal Courts, who contends that Bator's article is the intellectual foundation for the "legal process" approach of most of the Court's recent decisions restricting access to the federal courts.
42. Paul M. Bator, "Finality in Criminal Law and Federal Habeas Corpus for State Prisoners," Harvard Law Review 76 (January 1963): 441-528. Cerf called this article "the leading discussion" of the Court's opinions. Cerf, "The Federal Habeas Corpus Act and the Recent Amendments," 409. See also, Yackle, Reclaiming the Federal Courts, who contends that Bator's article is the intellectual foundation for the "legal process" approach of most of the Court's recent decisions restricting access to the federal courts.
43. Bator, "Finality in Criminal Law," 451.
44. Henry J. Friendly, "Is Innocence Irrelevant? Collateral Attacks on Criminal Judgments," The University of Chicago Law Review 38 (1970): 142-172.
45. Ibid., 171.
46. Nichol, "Backing into the Future," 356-362.
47. 433 U.S. 72 (1977).
48. Ibid., 88-90.
49. First draft of majority opinion in Wainwright v. Sykes, Box 187, Folder 6, Thurgood Marshall Papers, Library of Congress, 25 May 1997, pp. 12-13, 19-20.
50. Memorandum from Justice Stevens to Justice Rehnquist, 27 May 1977, Box 187, Folder 6, Thurgood Marshall Papers.
51. Memorandum from Justice Rehnquist to Conference, 1 June 1977; Ibid.
52. Memorandum from Justice Stewart to Conference, 11 January 1977, pp. 2-3, Box 178, Folder 7, Administrative Files; Ibid.
53. Memorandum from Justice Rehnquist to Conference, 12 January 1977, pp. 1-7; Ibid.
54. Memorandum from Justice Stewart to Conference, 12 January 1977, p. 8; Ibid.
55. Stone v. Powell, 428 U.S. 465 (1976); Francis v. Henderson, 425 U.S. 536 (1976).
56. Nichol, "Backing Into the Future."
57. Interview with Daniel Schweitzer, National Association of Attorneys General, Washington, D.C., 6 December 1990.
58. Victor E. Flango, Habeas Corpus in State and Federal Courts (Williamsburg, VA: National Center for State Courts, 1994), pp. 9-14.
59. See, for example, Yale L. Rosenberg, "Kaddish for Federal Habeas Corpus," The George Washington Law Review 59 (January 1991): 362-378. "Kaddish is the ancient Jewish prayer for the dead," Ibid., 362.
60. See, for example, Yale L. Rosenberg, "Kaddish for Federal Habeas Corpus," The George Washington Law Review 59 (January 1991): 362-378. "Kaddish is the ancient Jewish prayer for the dead," Ibid., 362.
61. First Draft of Opinion in Rose v. Lundy, 23 November 1981, pp. 10-11, Box 289, Folder 11, S.Ct. Case Files, Thurgood Marshall Papers.
62. Memorandum from Justice Brennan to Justice O'Connor, 25 November 1981; Ibid.
63. Memorandum from Justice Rehnquist to Justice O'Connor, 25 November 1981; Ibid.
64. No Author, "Habeas Corpus Revisions," Congressional Quarterly Almanac 1984 (Washington, D.C.: Congressional Quarterly, 1985), pp. 228-229.
65. 477 U.S. 478 (1986).
66. 477 U.S. 527 (1986).
67. Memorandum from Justice Rehnquist to Justice O'Connor, 7 April 1986, Box 397, Folder 10, S.Ct. Case Files, Thurgood Marshall Papers.
68. Ad Hoc Committee on Federal Habeas Corpus in Capital Cases, Report and Proposal (Washington, D.C., Congressional Quarterly, 1989).
69. No Author, "Crime Bill Moves Ahead With Partisan Push," Congressional Quarterly Almanac 1989 (Washington, D.C.: Congressional Quarterly, 1990), pp. 259-260.
70. Conference of Chief Justices, Resolution XI, Adopted by Conference of Chief Justices on 3 August 1989. Provided in Flango, Habeas Corpus in State and Federal Courts, frontispiece.
71. Interview with Schweitzer (NAAG); Interview with Thomas Henderson, Executive Director, National Center for State Courts, Arlington, VA, 3 December 1996.
72. Interview with Schweitzer, Oyez, Oyez, Oyez: Services of the NAAG Supreme Court Project (Washington, D.C.: National Association of Attorneys General, 1996).
73. Steve Berenson, Ratroactivity In Habeas Corpus Cases Since Teague v. Lane (Washington, D.C.: National Association of Attorneys General, 1993).
74. Conference of Chief Justices, Resolution XXIII, "Habeas Corpus in Capital Cases," adopted 1 February 1990, cited in Flango, Habeas Corpus in State and Federal Courts, p. 82.
75. Conference of Chief Justices, Resolution XXIII, "Habeas Corpus in Capital Cases," adopted 1 February 1990, cited in Flango, Habeas Corpus in State and Federal Courts, p. 82.
76. No Author,"Bush Signs Stripped Down Crime Bill," Congressional Quarterly Almanac 1990 (Washington, D.C.: Congressional Quarterly, 1991), pp. 486-488.
77. No Author, "Lawmakers Divided on Court Rulings That Curb Death Penalty Challenges," Ibid., pp. 488-489.
78. Ibid., 488.
79. 111 S.Ct. 2456 (1991).
80. Ibid., 2252-2565.
81. First Draft of Opinion in Coleman v. Thompson, 21 March 1991, p. 14, Box 539, Folder 3, S.Ct. Case Files, Justice Thurgood Marshall Papers.
82. Memorandum from Justice Rehnquist to Justice Sandra O'Connor, 1 April 1991; Ibid.
83. Memorandum from Justice Sandra O'Connor to Justice William Rehnquist, 2 April 1991. Second Draft of Opinion circulated 2 April 1991, p. 14; Ibid.
84. Bench Memorandum from Law Clerks for Justice Thurgood Marshall, Capital Case, Coleman v. Thompson, 20 February 1991, pp. 5-6, Box 514; Ibid.
85. Teague v. Lane, 489 U.S. 288 (1989).
86. No Author, "Anti-Crime Bill Falls Victim to Partisanship," Congressional Quarterly Almanac 1991 (Washington, D.C.: Congressional Quarterly, 1992), pp. 262-270.
87. No Author, "Court Continues Crackdown on Crime...As Critics See Loss of Defendants' Rights," Ibid., 264-265.
88. 111 S.Ct. 1454 (1991).
89. Remarks of Justice Sandra Day O'Connor to The Attorney General's Crime Summit, Washington, D.C., 4 March 1991, cited in Yackle, Reclaiming the Federal Courts, p. 177.
90. Holly Idelson, "Crime Provisions in Anti-Terrorism Bill," Congressional Quarterly Weekly Report 54 (16 March 1996): 703.
91. Justices Souter, Stevens, and Breyer joined in concurrences that suggested a more narrow interpretation of the act than that of the majority. Felker v. Turpin, 116 S.Ct. 2333 (1996), 2341; Justice John Stevens concurrence, 2341-2342 (Justice David Souter concurrence).
92. Ibid.
93. Dubber, "Prudence and Substance," p. 32; Yackle, Reclaiming the Federal Courts.
94. Dubber, "Prudence and Substance," p. 32; Yackle, Reclaiming the Federal Courts.
95. Roger A. Hanson and Henry W. K. Daley, Federal Habeas Corpus Review: Challenging State Court Convictions, (Washington, D.C.: Bureau of Justice Statistics, U.S. Department of Justice, 1995), pp. 17-18.
96. Ibid., 29-30.
97. Flango, Habeas Corpus in State and Federal Courts, pp. 89-91.
98. Ibid., 20-22.
99. Ibid., 79.
100. Ibid., 91; Hanson and Daley, Federal Habeas Corpus Review, p. 29.
101. Ibid., 91; Hanson and Daley, Federal Habeas Corpus Review, p. 29.