Habeas Corpus: The Constitution's Mention

The writ of habeas corpus is a legal procedure that invokes the jurisdiction of a court to review the unlawful detention or imprisonment of an individual. The writ of habeas corpus is mentioned in the Suspension Clause (Clause 2) of the US Constitution, located in Article One, Section 9. This clause states that The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it. The writ of habeas corpus is a fundamental right that protects against unlawful and indefinite imprisonment, and it has been used in various contexts throughout US history, including during the Civil War and the War on Terror.

Explore related products

Habeas Corpus in America: The Politics of Individual Rights (Constitutional Thinking)

$35.51 $59.99

Federal Writ of Habeas Corpus Manual: 28 U.S.C. 2254 Habeas Corpus Practice Manual, Case Law & Forms

$29.99

Winning Habeas Corpus & Post Conviction Relief, 9th Edition 2022

$89.5

The Constitution of the United States of America: The Declaration of Independence, The Bill of Rights

$9.99 $9.99

The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus Under the Constitution

$24.95

Habeas Corpus: A Very Short Introduction (Very Short Introductions)

$3.99 $4.79

The writ of habeas corpus in the US Constitution

The writ of habeas corpus is a legal procedure that allows a court to review the lawfulness of a person's detention and request their presence before the court. The term habeas corpus is Medieval Latin for "you should have the body" or "show me the body".

In the United States, the writ of habeas corpus is considered a fundamental right in the Constitution, protecting against unlawful and indefinite imprisonment. The Suspension Clause of the US Constitution Article I, Section 9, Clause 2 states:

> "The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it."

This clause does not explicitly establish a right to the writ of habeas corpus but instead prevents Congress from restricting it. The US Constitution does not specifically create a right to habeas corpus relief, and federal statutes grant federal courts the authority to grant habeas relief to state prisoners.

The jurisdiction of federal courts to issue writs of habeas corpus was first granted by the Judiciary Act of 1789, but only for federal prisoners. Federal habeas jurisdiction for state prisoners was authorized on a limited basis by the Habeas Corpus Act of 1867, following the Civil War. This statute, however, did not allow for a review of constitutional errors.

The writ of habeas corpus has been used in varied ways in modern US history. In the mid-20th century, the US Supreme Court's broad interpretation of the constitutional rights of the accused led to many habeas corpus petitions challenging convictions. This interpretation was later narrowed by the Supreme Court and congressional acts. Today, a writ of habeas corpus is often requested for individuals in police custody, requiring law enforcement to either charge or release the person.

Throughout US history, the writ of habeas corpus has been suspended several times, including by President Abraham Lincoln during the Civil War in 1861, and by President Ulysses Grant during Reconstruction. During World War II, President Franklin D. Roosevelt also suspended the writ. Following the September 11 attacks, President George W. Bush attempted to place Guantanamo Bay detainees outside the jurisdiction of habeas corpus, but this was overturned by the Supreme Court in Boumediene v. Bush (2008).

Habeas corpus in the Magna Carta

The concept of habeas corpus, or "you should have the body", first appeared in 1215 in the Magna Carta, which was signed by King John. Article 39 of the Magna Carta states: "No Freeman shall be taken, or imprisoned... but by lawful judgement of his peers, or by the law of the land."

This concept, which has been described as the "great writ of freedom", has been interpreted as an early form of habeas corpus. It provided a legal mechanism to safeguard individual liberty and prevent unlawful or arbitrary imprisonment. The writ of habeas corpus, as it evolved in the English courts, allowed a court to exercise jurisdiction and guarantee the rights of subjects against arbitrary arrest and detention.

The Habeas Corpus Act of 1679, passed during the reign of Charles II after the English Civil War, further strengthened the writ. This Act applied to sheriffs and jailers who were causing delays in releasing prisoners and imposed strict deadlines and heavy fines for non-compliance. By this time, habeas corpus was well-established in Britain, but it had yet to make its way to the colonies in North America.

The writ of habeas corpus is a flexible legal mechanism that can be administered with initiative and flexibility to obtain the release of individuals from illegal custody. It is a powerful tool to hold authorities accountable and ensure that any deprivation of liberty is justified by legally valid reasons. The right to habeas corpus is a fundamental principle in modern legal systems, including in the US Constitution, where it is specifically included in the Suspension Clause (Article I, Section 9, Clause 2).

Habeas corpus in common law

The writ of habeas corpus is a legal procedure that invokes the jurisdiction of a court to review the unlawful detention or imprisonment of an individual. It is generally enforced via a writ, which is addressed to the custodian of the unlawfully detained individual (usually a prison official). The writ orders the custodian to produce the detained individual before the court to determine whether their detention is lawful. If the detention is found to be unlawful, the court may order the release of the individual.

Habeas corpus is one of the "extraordinary", "common law", or "prerogative writs", which were historically issued by the English courts in the name of the monarch to control inferior courts and public authorities within the kingdom. The writ was a legal mechanism that allowed a court to exercise jurisdiction and guarantee the rights of all the Crown's subjects against arbitrary arrest and detention. The law of habeas corpus was adopted in the U.S. as well, with the Judiciary Act of 1789 granting federal courts the authority to issue writs of habeas corpus for federal prisoners.

The writ of habeas corpus has been recognised as a fundamental human right in various countries and legal traditions. For example, in Australia, the writ of habeas corpus is part of the country's common law inheritance, and it is enshrined in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which states that " [e]veryone has the right on arrest or detention ... to have the validity of the detention determined by way of habeas corpus and to be released if the detention is not lawful". Similarly, in Canada, habeas corpus rights exist in common law and are enshrined in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. In the Republic of Ireland, the writ of habeas corpus is available at common law and under the Habeas Corpus Acts of 1782 and 1816, and a remedy equivalent to habeas corpus is guaranteed by Article 40 of the 1937 constitution.

In the United States, the Constitution specifically includes the habeas procedure in the Suspension Clause (Clause 2), located in Article One, Section 9. This clause states that "The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it". While the Constitution does not explicitly create the right to habeas corpus relief, federal statutes authorise federal courts to grant such relief to state prisoners. The Supreme Court of the United States has recognised the importance of the writ of habeas corpus, stating that it is a "fundamental instrument for safeguarding individual freedom against arbitrary and lawless state action".

Explore related products

The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus Under the Constitution, Vol. 2 (Classic Reprint)

$29.97

The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus Under the Constitution of the United States: In what it Consists. How it is Allowed. How it is Suspended. It ... of an Exercise of Legislative Power

$8.54 $8.95

The Connecticut Habeas Corpus Guide

$19.99 $19.99

SMITH'S GUIDE to State Habeas Corpus Relief for State Prisoners

$34.95

A Review of Mr. Binney's Pamphlet on "the Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus Under the Constitution" (Classic Reprint)

$29.97

Lincoln's Suspension Of Habeas Corpus, As Viewed By Congress

$19.95

Suspension of habeas corpus

The writ of habeas corpus is a legal procedure that invokes the jurisdiction of a court to review the unlawful detention or imprisonment of an individual. The custodian of the prisoner (usually a prison official) is then required to bring the prisoner to court, where the court determines whether their detention is lawful. Habeas corpus is generally enforced via a writ, and is therefore referred to as a writ of habeas corpus.

The writ of habeas corpus is mentioned in the US Constitution in the Suspension Clause (Clause 2), located in Article One, Section 9. This states that:

> "The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it."

The Suspension Clause does not expressly establish a right to the writ of habeas corpus; instead, it prevents Congress from restricting it. There has been much scholarly debate over whether the Clause positively establishes a right under the federal constitution, merely exists to prevent Congress from prohibiting state courts from granting the writ, or protects a pre-existing common law right enforceable by federal judges.

The writ of habeas corpus has been suspended several times throughout history. For example, President Abraham Lincoln suspended the writ by executive proclamation at the outbreak of the Civil War in 1861. This was challenged by Chief Justice Roger Taney, who contended that the power of suspension resided only in Congress. Lincoln ignored the court order, but the weight of modern opinion appears to support Taney's view.

In modern times, the writ of habeas corpus has been used in the War on Terror, with the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005 and the Military Commissions Act of 2006 narrowing the scope of habeas relief. These acts provided that prisoners held in Guantanamo Bay may not access federal courts through habeas corpus and must instead go through military commissions. However, in Boumediene v. Bush (2008), the Supreme Court expanded the territorial reach of habeas corpus, ruling that the Suspension Clause affirmatively guaranteed the right to habeas review.

Limitations and expansions of habeas corpus

The writ of habeas corpus is a legal procedure that invokes the jurisdiction of a court to review the unlawful detention or imprisonment of an individual. It can be used to bring a prisoner or other detainee before the court to determine if their imprisonment or detention is lawful. The procedure originated in 1215, through the 39th clause of the Magna Carta, which provided that "No man shall be arrested or imprisoned...except by the lawful judgment of his peers and by the law of the land".

Limitations of Habeas Corpus

The writ of habeas corpus has faced certain limitations throughout history. For example, in some countries, the writ has been temporarily or permanently suspended during times of war or a state of emergency. This includes the Habeas Corpus Suspension Act of 1794 in Britain and the Habeas Corpus Suspension Act of 1863 in the United States. Additionally, there are statutory provisions and strict procedures that govern which habeas corpus petitions judges may consider. Rules generally bar inmates from repetitively filing petitions about the same matter.

In the United States, the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (AEDPA) of 1996 narrowed the writ of habeas corpus by imposing a one-year statute of limitations on habeas petitions and restricting successive petitions from state prisoners. The Detainee Treatment Act of 2005 (DTA) and the Military Commissions Act of 2006 (MCA) further narrowed the scope of habeas relief, excluding prisoners held in Guantanamo Bay from accessing federal courts through habeas corpus.

In terms of habeas corpus review of capital sentences, the rule of retroactivity applies, and new rules of constitutional interpretation announced after a defendant's conviction cannot be retroactively applied. Circuit precedent also cannot refine or sharpen a general principle of Supreme Court habeas corpus jurisprudence into a specific legal rule that the Supreme Court has not yet announced.

Expansions of Habeas Corpus

The Habeas Corpus Act of 1867 in the United States authorized federal habeas jurisdiction for state prisoners on a limited basis after the Civil War. However, it did not allow for a review of constitutional errors. Following the lynching of Leo Frank, the Court signalled a more expansive interpretation of the habeas statute, which was affirmed in Moore v. Dempsey, where the United States Supreme Court held that a trial dominated by a mob violated the 14th amendment's due process clause.

In 1953, Brown v. Allen opened the door for federal review of state court judgments to protect the constitutional rights of criminal defendants. The Supreme Court's decision in Boumediene v. Bush (2008) further expanded the territorial reach of habeas corpus, ruling that the Suspension Clause guaranteed the right to habeas review for alien detainees designated as enemy combatants and held outside the United States.

In Australia, the writ of habeas corpus is part of the country's common law inheritance, and it is enshrined in section 10(c) of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. This guarantees the right of anyone arrested or detained to have the validity of their detention determined by way of habeas corpus and to be released if the detention is not lawful.

Frequently asked questions