Committee on Judiciary. Hearings held. Hearings printed: S.Hrg. 104-428.
Congressional Research Service
Official summary
Version 00 · Introduced in Senate · Mar 24, 1995
Habeas Corpus Reform Act of 1995 - Amends the Federal judicial code to establish a one-year statute of limitations for habeas corpus actions brought by State prisoners. (Sec. 3) Vests authority to issue certificates of probable cause for appeal of habeas corpus orders exclusively in the courts of appeals. Prohibits an appeal from being taken, unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability, from the final order in a habeas corpus proceeding in which the detention complained of arises out of process issued by a State court or the final order involving a prisoner in Federal custody. (Sec. 4) Sets forth provisions revising Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 22 regarding application for an original writ of habeas corpus and for a certificate of appealability. (Sec. 5) Provides that a State shall not be deemed to have waived the exhaustion requirement or be estopped from reliance upon the requirement unless the State, through counsel, expressly waives the requirement. (Sec. 6) Imposes a one-year statute of limitations for filing for collateral relief by Federal prisoners. (Sec. 7) Revises provisions regarding limits on second or successive applications involving State prisoners. Requires dismissal of a claim presented in a second or successive habeas corpus application not presented in a prior application unless: (1) the applicant shows that the claim relies on a new rule of constitutional law, made retroactive by the Supreme Court, that was previously unavailable; or (2) the factual predicate for the claim could not have been discovered previously through the exercise of due diligence and the facts underlying the claim, if proven and viewed in light of the evidence as a whole, would be sufficient to establish by clear and convincing evidence that, but for constitutional error, no reasonable factfinder would have found the applicant guilty of the underlying offense. (Sec. 8) Sets forth special habeas corpus procedures in capital cases, including provisions regarding: (1) the appointment, and claims of ineffectiveness, of counsel; (2) the filing of habeas corpus applications; (3) the scope of Federal review; (4) State unitary review procedures; and (5) limitation periods for determining applications and motions.
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.623 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.623 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.623 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.623 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.