Federal habeas corpus as we know it is by and large a procedure under which a court may review the legality of an individual's incarceration. It is an intricate weave of statute and case law whose reach has flowed and ebbed over time. And with narrow exception, state prisoners may not employ federal habeas as a means to assert, or retroactively claim the benefits of, a previously unrecognized interpretation of constitutional law (i.e., a "new rule"). "If the prisoner asserts a claim that he has already presented in a previous federal habeas petition, the claim must be dismissed in all cases." The AEDPA offered a streamlined habeas procedure in cases involving state death row inmates to those states that fill this gap, 28 U.S.C. References to competence standards for appointed counsel were removed. Habeas for Federal Convicts: The Section 2255 Substitute

Federal prisoners who claim that they are being held by virtue of a conviction or sentence rendered contrary to the Constitution or laws of the United States must ordinarily repair to section 2255 of title 28 of the United States Code for collateral review. The Court has noted, however, that the lower federal courts have applied the Teague rule to section 2255. The Judiciary Act of 1789 declared that "all the before mentioned courts of the United States [the Supreme Court, circuit courts, and district courts] shall power to issue writs of ... habeas corpus.... And that either of the justices of the supreme court, as well as judges of the district courts shall power to grant writs of habeas corpus for the purpose of an inquiry into the cause of commitment.... "
After the Civil War, Congress conferred additional habeas authority upon the federal courts as a check against state authorities in the newly reconstructed South by making the writ available to anyone held in violation of the Constitution and other laws of the United States. 2229 (2008).
Federal habeas corpus is a procedure under which a federal court may review the legality of an individual's incarceration. It is most often the stage of the criminal appellate process that follows direct appeal and any available state collateral review. The law in the area is an intricate weave of statute and case law.
Current federal law operates under the premise that with rare exceptions prisoners challenging the legality of the procedures by which they were tried or sentenced get "one bite of the apple." Relief for state prisoners is only available if the state courts have ignored or rejected their valid claims, and there are strict time limits within which they may petition the federal courts for relief. Moreover, a prisoner relying upon a novel interpretation of law must succeed on direct appeal; federal habeas review may not be used to establish or claim the benefits of a "new rule." Expedited federal habeas procedures are available in the case of state death row inmates if the state has provided an approved level of appointed counsel. The Supreme Court has yet to hold that a state death row inmate who asserts he is "actually innocent" may be granted habeas relief in the absence of an otherwise constitutionally defective conviction. The Court has made it clear in the case of the Guantanamo detainees that the privilege of the writ may not be legislatively extinguished unless there is an adequate substitute, Boumediene v. Bush , 128 S.Ct. 2229 (2008).
This report is available in an abridged version as CRS Report RS22432, Federal Habeas Corpus: An Abridged Sketch , by [author name scrubbed].