z-logo
open-access-imgOpen Access
The Constitutional Puzzle of Habeas Corpus
Author(s) -
Edward A. Hartnett
Publication year - 2004
Publication title -
ssrn electronic journal
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
ISSN - 1556-5068
DOI - 10.2139/ssrn.516882
Subject(s) - habeas corpus , political science , law , linguistics , philosophy , constitution
The U.S. Constitution has always protected habeas corpus. Yet when we consider the Suspension Clause together with three other constitutional principles, we find a constitutional puzzle. Pursuant to the Madisonian Compromise, inferior federal courts are constitutionally optional. Under Marbury v. Madison, Congress cannot expand the Supreme Court's original jurisdiction beyond the bounds of Article III. Pursuant to Tarble's Case, state courts cannot issue writs of habeas corpus to determine the legality of federal custody. There would seem to be a violation of the Suspension Clause, however, if neither the inferior federal courts, the Supreme Court, nor the state courts could issue writs of habeas corpus. This Article suggests that the apparent conFLict among these constitutional principles can be resolved by the power of individual Justices of the Supreme Court to issue writs of habeas corpus.

The content you want is available to Zendy users.

Already have an account? Click here to sign in.
Having issues? You can contact us here
Accelerating Research

Address

John Eccles House
Robert Robinson Avenue,
Oxford Science Park, Oxford
OX4 4GP, United Kingdom