Habeas Corpus Case Law

SCOTUS JURISDICTION CASE LAW

Summary

“Even in Ex parte Siebold, 100 U.S. 371(1880), which held that the constitutionality of a prisoner’s statute of conviction could be reviewed on habeas (as going to jurisdiction)”  Jones v. Hendrix, 599 U.S. 465, 485 (2023) Justice Thomas.

“The . . . jurisdiction of this court, exercisable by the writ of habeas corpus, extends to a case of imprisonment upon conviction and sentence of a party by [a]. . . court of the United States, under and by virtue of an unconstitutional act of Congress.” Ex parte Siebold, 100 U.S. 371, 371 (1879). “That this court is authorized to exercise [. . .] jurisdiction by habeas corpus directly is a position sustained by abundant authority.” 100 U.S. at 374.

“Held, that the question of the constitutionality of said laws is good ground for the issue by this court of a writ of habeas corpus to inquire into the legality of the imprisonment under such conviction, and, if the laws are determined to be unconstitutional, the prisoner should be discharged.” Ex parte Siebold, 100 U.S. 371, (1879)

“The . . . jurisdiction of this court, exercisable by the writ of habeas corpus, extends to a case of imprisonment upon conviction and sentence of a party by an inferior court of the United States, under and by virtue of an unconstitutional act of Congress.” Ex parte Siebold, 100 U.S. 371, 371 (1879).

 “It seems to be a necessary consequence that if the . . .  jurisdiction of habeas corpus extends to any case, it extends to this.” Ex Parte Yerger, 75 U.S. 8  Wall. 85 85, 102 (1868). “[D]eciding upon questions of personal rights which can only be attained through appellate jurisdiction” 75 U.S. at 103. That “in a proper case this Court, under the act of 1789, and under all the subsequent acts, giving jurisdiction in cases of habeas corpus may, in the exercise of its appellate power, revise the decisions of inferior courts of the United States and relieve from unlawful imprisonment authorized by them . . .75 U.S.at 98

“Such a petition is commonly understood to be "original" in the sense of being filed in the first instance in this Court, but none the less for constitutional purposes an exercise of this Court's appellate (rather than original) jurisdiction.” Felker v.Turpin, 518 U.S. 651, 667 (1996) “It seems to be a necessary consequence that if the appellate jurisdiction of habeas corpus extends to any case, it extends to this.” Ex Parte Yerger, 75 U.S. 8  Wall. 85 85, 102 (1868).

“[D]eciding upon questions of personalrights which can only be attained through appellate jurisdiction” 75 U.S. at 103. That “in a proper case this Court, under the act of 1789, and under all the subsequent acts, giving jurisdiction in cases of habeas corpus may, in the exercise of its appellate power, revise the decisions of inferior courts of the United States and relieve from unlawful imprisonment authorized by them . . .75 U.S.at 98

Felker v. Turpin, 518 U.S. 651 (1996)
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/518/651/

Section 14 of the Judiciary Act of 1789 is the direct ancestor of 28 U. S. C. § 2241, subsection (a) of which now states in pertinent part: ''Writs of habeas corpus may be granted by the Supreme Court, any justice thereof, the district courts and any circuit judge within their respective jurisdictions."  518 U.S. 659

It was not until 1867 that Congress made the writ generally available in "all cases where any person may be restrained of his or her liberty in violation of the constitution, or of any treaty or law of the United States." 518 U.S. 663

“Our Rule 20.4(a) delineates the standards under which we grant such writs:

"A petition seeking the issuance of a writ of habeas corpus shall comply with the requirements of 28 U. S. C. §§ 2241 and 2242, and in particular with the provision in the last paragraph of § 2242 requiring a statement of the 'reasons for not making application to the district court of the district in which the applicant is held.' [ . . .] 518 U.S. at 665

“Such a petition is commonly understood to be "original" in the sense of being filed in the first instance in this Court, but nonetheless for constitutional purposes an exercise of this Court's appellate (rather than original) jurisdiction.” Felker v. Turpin, 518 U.S. 651, 667(1996)

Lonchar v. Thomas, 517 U.S. 314 (1996) https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/517/314/

First, the history of the Great Writ reveals [ . . . ], the gradual evolution of more formal judicial, statutory, or rules-based doctrines of law that regularize and thereby narrow the discretion that individual judges can freely exercise.[. . . .]. Second, the fact that the writ has been called an "equitable" remedy, [ . . .] does not authorize a court to ignore this body of statutes, rules, and precedents. Rather, "courts of equity must be governed by rules and precedents no less than the courts of law," Missouri v. Jenkins, 515 U. S. 70, 127. Lonchar v. Thomas, 517 U.S. 314 (1996) 517 U.S. at 315

Ex parte Siebold, 100 U.S. 371, (1879)
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/100/371/

“The only ground on which this court, [ . . . ] will give relief on habeas corpus to a prisoner under conviction and sentence of another court is the want of [ . . .] some other [constitutional] matter rendering its proceedings void. . .” Citations deleted. 100 U.S. at 375

“1. The appellate jurisdiction of this court, exercisable by the writ of habeas corpus, extends to a case of imprisonment upon conviction and sentence of a party by an inferior court of the United States, under and by virtue of an unconstitutional act of Congress.” 100 U.S. at 371

“2. The jurisdiction of this court by habeas corpus, when not restrained by some special law, extends generally to imprisonment pursuant to the judgment of an inferior tribunal of the United States [ . . .] whose proceedings are otherwise void and not merely erroneous, and such a case occurs when the proceedings are had under an unconstitutional act.” 100 U.S. at 371

“4. Where personal liberty is concerned, the judgment of an inferior court affecting it is not so conclusive but that the question of its authority to try and imprison the party may be reviewed on habeas corpus by a superior court or judge having power to award the writ.” 100 U.S. at 371

“5. [ . . .] Held, that the question of the constitutionality of said laws is good ground for the issue by this court of a writ of habeas corpus to inquire into the legality of the imprisonment under such conviction, and, if the laws are determined to be unconstitutional, the prisoner should be discharged.” 100 U.S. at 371

“That this court is authorized to exercise appellate jurisdiction by habeas corpus directly is a position sustained by abundant authority.” 100 U.S. 374

“The validity of the judgments is assailed on the ground that the acts of Congress under which the indictments were found are unconstitutional [. . .] An unconstitutional law is void, and is as no law. An offence created by it is not a crime. A conviction under it is not merely erroneous, but is illegal and void, and cannot be a legal cause of imprisonment.”  100 U.S. 377-367

“But personal liberty is of so great moment in the eye of the law that the judgment of an inferior court affecting it is not deemed so conclusive but that, as we have seen, the question of the court's authority to try and imprison the party may be reviewed on habeas corpus by a superior court or judge having authority to award the writ. 100 U.S. 377

Ex Parte Yerger, 75 U.S. 8 Wall. 85 85 (1868)
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/75/85/

The great writ of habeas corpus has been for centuries esteemed the best and only sufficient defense of personal freedom.” Ex Parte Yerger, 75 U.S. 8 Wall. 85 85, 95 (1868)75 U.S.C. at 95 “And that either of the justices of the Supreme Court as well as judges of the district courts shall have power to grant writs of habeas corpus for the purpose of an inquiry into the cause of commitment.” 75 U.S. at 96

“It is that every citizen may be protected by judicial action from unlawful imprisonment. To this end, the act of 1789 provided that every court of the United States should have power to issue the writ. The jurisdiction thus given in law to the circuit and district courts is original; that given by the Constitution and the law to this Court is appellate.” 75 U.S. at 101

“It seems to be a necessary consequence that if the appellate jurisdiction of habeas corpus extends to any case, it extends to this. deciding upon questions of personal rights which can only be attained through appellate jurisdiction.” 75 U.S. 103

That “in a proper case this Court, under the act of 1789, and under all the subsequent acts, giving jurisdiction in cases of habeas corpus may, in the exercise of its appellate power, revise the decisions of inferior courts of the United States and relieve from unlawful imprisonment authorized by them except in cases within some limitations of the jurisdiction by Congress.” 75 U.S. 98, 103

Ex Parte Bollman and Ex Parte Swartwout,

8 U.S. 4 Cranch 75 75 (1807)
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/8/75/

“Courts which originate in the common law possess a jurisdiction which must be regulated by their common law until some statute shall change their established principles, but courts which are created by written law and whose jurisdiction is defined by written law cannot transcend that jurisdiction.” 8 U.S. at 93

“The meaning of the term "habeas corpus" resort may unquestionably be had to the common law; but the power to award the writ by any of the courts of the United States must be given by written law.” 8 U.S. at 93-94

“And that either of the justices of the Supreme Court as well as judges of the district courts shall have power to grant writs of habeas corpus for the purpose of an inquiry into the cause of commitment.” 8 U.S. at 94.

“If the act of Congress gives this Court the power to award a writ of habeas corpus in the present case, it remains to inquire whether that act be compatible with the Constitution.” 8 U.S. at 100

“The decision that the individual shall be imprisoned must always precede the application for a writ of habeas corpus, and this writ must always be for the purpose of revising that decision, and therefore appellate in its nature.” 8 U.S. at 101