In the last thirty years, the Supreme Court and Congress have made the fede
ral writ of habeas corpus increasingly less available to state prisoners. B
y and large, they have restricted the writ through the creation and expansi
on of procedural barriers to federal habeas review. Recently, however, the
policy debate over how to handle the deluge of federal habeas petitions has
begun to shift away from creating procedural hurdles and toward a more str
aightforward narrowing of the substantive scope of the writ, as Congress ha
s started to consider bills that would preclude state prisoners from raisin
g certain federal constitutional claims in their habeas petitions.
This Article examines how Congress might narrow the substantive scope of th
e writ of habeas corpus, should it ultimately decide to do so. The Article
first considers the various criteria and the underlying theories of habeas
that Congress might use to select the federal constitutional claims that wo
uld remain cognizable on habeas. The Article concludes that the best guide
is a theory that accommodates both the historical role of habeas as a bulwa
rk against fundamentally unfair incarceration and the current function of h
abeas as an additional "appeal" from state court. The Article then delineat
es which constitutional claims should remain available on habeas, and revis
its the current procedural hurdles to see which may be eliminated or loosen
ed Finally, the Article briefly assesses the constitutionality of this new,
narrower statutory writ.