Brown v. Allen, 344 U.S. 443 (1953), is a landmark United States Supreme Court case about habeas corpus.

[2] Justice Felix Frankfurter concurring in Brown notes the "uniqueness" of habeas corpus is its availability to "bring into question the legality of a person's restraint and to require justification for such detention".

Justice Reed said Frankfurter's opinion concurring in the judgment represented the position of the majority about the effect of the denial of certiorari.

[8] Frankfurter also noted the interest in uniformity of "enforcement of the Constitution" in all states and outlined some guidelines or standards for limiting federal habeas review.

"[10][11][7] Writing separately Justice Felix Frankfurter said that "state adjudication of questions of law cannot, under the habeas corpus statute, be accepted as binding.

[14] In the consolidated case Daniels v. Allen habeas was denied because the defendant was one day late filing paperwork according to the state's procedure.

Justice Jackson concurring in the judgment said the "vague and unsettled" requirements of substantive due process allowed "floods of stale, frivolous and repetitious petitions".

[8] Paul Bator wrote an influential article Finality in Criminal Law and Federal Habeas Corpus for State Prisoners (1963) arguing that Brown represented a "radical" departure from established precedents.

[6] Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, concurring in the judgment in Wright v. West (1992), wrote separately because she disagreed with the majority's legal analysis which closely followed Bator's explanation pre-1953 habeas law.