In rendering these decisions, the Burger Court has shown its sensitivity to the restricted view of Federalism propounded by the President, members of Congress, and members of the Supreme Court. The Warren Court had a high regard for the writ of habeas corpus, but the Burger Court is taking a different approach, not because of any constitutional prohibition but for policy reasons. The reasons given are to decrease friction between the Federal and State levels, to promote the finality of criminal convictions, and to conserve judicial resources. The decisions have cut back on habeas corpus relief by withdrawing fourth amendment claims from habeas corpus proceedings, creating almost insurmountable procedural obstacles, and narrowing the scope of Federal review of claims properly before a court. Major decisions have included Stone v. Powell, Engle v. Isaac, United States v. Frady, and Rose v. Lundy. The restrictions which have resulted are disturbing, because decisions overturning State court convictions have been rare, and the procedural barriers may not necessarily promote judicial economy. The reasons given by the Court should not override the basic goal of Federal habeas corpus. Thirty-eight footnotes are listed.