A bill to provide expedited procedures for the consideration of habeas corpus petitions in capital cases.
Read twice and referred to the Committee on Judiciary.
Congressional Research Service
Official summary
Version 00 · Introduced in Senate · Jan 27, 1993
Amends the Federal judicial code to set forth special habeas corpus procedures in capital cases. Applies such procedures to Federal habeas corpus cases brought by defendants subject to capital punishment and prisoners in State custody who are subject to a capital sentence, contingent upon a State establishing a mechanism for the appointment, compensation, and payment of reasonable fees and litigation expenses of competent counsel consistent with this Act. Sets forth procedures for the appointment of counsel. Provides for a mandatory stay of execution during the post-conviction review initiated pursuant to this Act. Authorizes the States to elect to create between one and three certification authorities (i.e., a special committee constituted by the State court of last resort or by State law, a capital litigation resource center, or a statewide defender organization) to: (1) certify attorneys qualified to represent persons charged with capital offenses or sentenced to death; (2) publish standards by which attorneys are certified and rosters; and (3) periodically review the roster of certified attorneys, monitor the performance of all attorneys certified, and withdraw certification from any attorney who fails to meet high performance standards or to demonstrate continuing competence to represent prisoners in capital litigation. Authorizes payment of fees and expenses for investigative, expert, or other services reasonably necessary for the representation of the defendant. Directs the court to fix the compensation to be paid to an attorney appointed under this Act. Specifies which law controls in Federal habeas corpus proceedings. Sets forth habeas corpus time requirements. Specifies that an applicant for habeas corpus in a capital case shall be deemed to have exhausted the remedies available in the courts of the State when he has exhausted any right to direct appeal in the State.
No related bills are listed in this snapshot. This does not establish whether the proposal has appeared in earlier Congresses.
Source last updated: Aug 10, 2026. Consult Congress.gov for the current record.
AI Conversation Starters
Explore the bill from different angles
Choose a perspective, copy a prompt, and paste it into your preferred AI. Each prompt includes the bill version and available official source links, and asks for counterarguments as well as supporting evidence.
Neutral evidence review
Objective
Analyze S.246 as objectively as possible. Explain its main provisions, who would be affected, possible benefits and harms, implementation, exceptions, and uncertainties. Present the strongest arguments for and against it, and identify evidence needed to assess its public impact.
View full prompt & sources
Fairness and public impact
Progressive lens
Examine S.246 through a progressive lens, focusing on fairness, access, economic inequality, and effects on vulnerable communities. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and distinguish stated goals from demonstrated outcomes.
View full prompt & sources
Institutions and government scope
Conservative lens
Examine S.246 through a conservative lens, focusing on fiscal responsibility, institutional stability, federalism, and the scope of government. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and any provisions that challenge this perspective.
View full prompt & sources
Individual rights and government power
Liberty lens
Examine S.246 through a civil-liberties and limited-government lens. Consider individual rights, privacy, voluntary choice, accountability, and government power. Explain tradeoffs, possible safeguards, and the strongest counterarguments without assuming the proposal is beneficial or harmful.