AEDPA AND THE PLRA AFTER 25 YEARS: INTRODUCTION.

• Author: Entint, Jonathan L.

In 1996, Congress passed two important statutes that bear on the criminal justice system. The Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (1) sought to recalibrate the relationship between state and federal courts by limiting the scope of federal habeas corpus review of state criminal convictions and by restricting the availability of federal habeas relief. (2) Proponents of these provisions sought "to curb the abuse of the habeas corpus process, and particularly to address the problem of delay and repetitive litigation in capital cases." (3)

The Prison Litigation Reform Act (4) limited the availability of federal relief for prisoners by codifying exhaustion requirements, mandating full payment of filing fees, authorizing judicial screening of prisoner complaints before docketing that can result in revocation of good-time credit, requiring a physical injury as a basis for recovery for mental or emotional injury, and adding a "three strikes" rule that bars prisoner access to federal court in certain circumstances. (5) These provisions sought to reduce judicial oversight of prison operations and deter what proponents regarded as a torrent of frivolous lawsuits that undermined the authority of correctional officials and imposed unjustified costs on government at all levels. (6)

Both of these statutes quickly elicited criticism. (7) They also have generated substantial bodies of jurisprudence. (8) To mark the twenty-fifth anniversary of AEDPA and the PLRA, the Case Western Reserve Law Review held a symposium in November 2021 that brought together a wide range of scholars, practitioners, and federal judges to discuss many questions about those statutes. This issue contains papers that were presented on that occasion.

The first three papers in this symposium issue address the relationship between the statutes and the COVID-19 pandemic. Nancy J. King focuses on the equitable powers of federal courts under AEDPA during the pandemic. (9) She emphasizes that this statute, whatever else it did, left intact judicial authority to grant habeas relief to prisoners held in violation of the Constitution. That authority is embodied in 28 U.S.C. [section] 2241. Professor King examines how some federal courts during the pandemic have used the equitable discretion that Section 2241 affords. More generally, she suggests that equitable considerations are important factors in addressing emergencies and unanticipated developments but cautions that those considerations will not inevitably militate in favor of relief in all circumstances. She urges Congress and the judiciary to retain the flexibility embodied in Section 2241 while continuing to debate the appropriate exercise of federal habeas authority.

The next article focuses on the PLRA. Margo Schlanger and Betsy Ginsberg analyze the effect of that measure's strict exhaustion requirement on the ability of inmates to obtain judicial review of the conditions of confinement during the pandemic. (10) The authors make...