Under contemporary practice, a State prisoner who has exhausted other avenues of appeal in the State court system may continue to litigate the validity of the conviction or sentence by applying for review in a Federal district court. While habeus corpus was meant as a remedy against unlawful executive detention, in current practice it is basically a statutory remedy not guaranteed by the Constitution or the common law. It is argued that mandatory review of claims that have been rejected in prior appellate proceedings goes beyond any legitimate interest of fairness to defendants. The absence of reasonable time limits and rules against repetitive application would be dismissed as absurd if suggested in connection with any other appellate mechanism. There is no reason to believe that preserving this extraordinary type of review yields any benefits that outweigh its substantial costs to finality, Federalism, and rational use of criminal justice resources. Consequently, it is recommended that Federal habeus corpus as a post-conviction remedy for State prisoners should be abolished or limited. Title II of the proposed Criminal Justice Reform Act provides the best immediate prospect for improvement. Several specific habeus corpus cases are appended to illustrate the costs of this review. (Author abstract modified)