scispace - formally typeset
Search or ask a question
Journal ArticleDOI

The "Original" Writ of Habeas Corpus in the Supreme Court

01 Jan 1962-Supreme Court Review (The University of Chicago Press)-Vol. 1962, Iss: 1, pp 6
TL;DR: A significant proportion of the United States Supreme Court's business in recent years has been concerned with motions for leave to file a petition for the original writ of habeas corpus.
Abstract: A significant proportion of the United States Supreme Court's business in recent years has been concerned with motions for leave to file a petition for the \"original\" writ of habeas corpus.' Some 2,000 such motions have been filed with the Court during the past three decades,2 an astonishing total in the light of the fact that relief has been denied in every instance. Indeed, it seems that not since 1925
Citations
More filters
Dissertation
12 May 2015
TL;DR: The U.S. Supreme Court's behavior during the War on Terror represents a stark contrast from how the Court has previously viewed its responsibilities during wartime, especially as they relate to the treatment of noncitizens detained abroad as discussed by the authors.
Abstract: The U.S. Supreme Court’s behavior during the War on Terror represents a stark contrast from how the Court has previously viewed its responsibilities during wartime, especially as they relate to the treatment of noncitizens detained abroad. The Court has traditionally avoided questioning presidential policies on the capture and detention of suspected enemies during times of conflict. It has used its control over its own docket to refuse review of lower-court decisions dismissing challenges to foreign-policy decisions based on dubious claims of their involving “political questions” or being outside the domain of judicial authority. And, until the War on Terror, it drew a bright-line rule that seemed to categorically exclude noncitizens detained abroad from constitutional protection. However, in a series of cases from 2004 to 2008, the Court reversed its World War II–era doctrines that had permitted the federal government extensive discretion in its treatment of detainees captured during times of hostilities. The culmination of these decisions was its 2008 holding that foreign nationals detained at Guantanamo Bay have a constitutional right to habeas corpus hearings to challenge their detentions. This dissertation provides a normative defense of the Court’s decision-making process in its War on Terror habeas corpus cases. It reconstructs and analyzes the Court’s central arguments and shows the ethical significance of its assertion of an important judicial role in overseeing executive detention during wartime. In the process, it also provides an explanation and defense of the Court’s decision to stray from its World War II–era doctrines limiting the reach of the writ of habeas corpus and, by extension, of the Court’s ability to step in and defend the rights of foreign nationals abroad.

25 citations

26 Apr 2006
TL;DR: In this paper, the authors discuss Federal habeas corpus, which is a procedure under which a federal court may review the legality of an individual's incarceration and is most often the stage of the criminal appellate process that follows direct appeal and any available state collateral review.
Abstract: This report discusses Federal habeas corpus, which is a procedure under which a federal court may review the legality of an individual’s incarceration. It is most often the stage of the criminal appellate process that follows direct appeal and any available state collateral review.

11 citations

References
More filters
Dissertation
12 May 2015
TL;DR: The U.S. Supreme Court's behavior during the War on Terror represents a stark contrast from how the Court has previously viewed its responsibilities during wartime, especially as they relate to the treatment of noncitizens detained abroad as discussed by the authors.
Abstract: The U.S. Supreme Court’s behavior during the War on Terror represents a stark contrast from how the Court has previously viewed its responsibilities during wartime, especially as they relate to the treatment of noncitizens detained abroad. The Court has traditionally avoided questioning presidential policies on the capture and detention of suspected enemies during times of conflict. It has used its control over its own docket to refuse review of lower-court decisions dismissing challenges to foreign-policy decisions based on dubious claims of their involving “political questions” or being outside the domain of judicial authority. And, until the War on Terror, it drew a bright-line rule that seemed to categorically exclude noncitizens detained abroad from constitutional protection. However, in a series of cases from 2004 to 2008, the Court reversed its World War II–era doctrines that had permitted the federal government extensive discretion in its treatment of detainees captured during times of hostilities. The culmination of these decisions was its 2008 holding that foreign nationals detained at Guantanamo Bay have a constitutional right to habeas corpus hearings to challenge their detentions. This dissertation provides a normative defense of the Court’s decision-making process in its War on Terror habeas corpus cases. It reconstructs and analyzes the Court’s central arguments and shows the ethical significance of its assertion of an important judicial role in overseeing executive detention during wartime. In the process, it also provides an explanation and defense of the Court’s decision to stray from its World War II–era doctrines limiting the reach of the writ of habeas corpus and, by extension, of the Court’s ability to step in and defend the rights of foreign nationals abroad.

25 citations

26 Apr 2006
TL;DR: In this paper, the authors discuss Federal habeas corpus, which is a procedure under which a federal court may review the legality of an individual's incarceration and is most often the stage of the criminal appellate process that follows direct appeal and any available state collateral review.
Abstract: This report discusses Federal habeas corpus, which is a procedure under which a federal court may review the legality of an individual’s incarceration. It is most often the stage of the criminal appellate process that follows direct appeal and any available state collateral review.

11 citations