Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Institution
- Publication
- Publication Type
Articles 1 - 7 of 7
Full-Text Articles in Entire DC Network
Is ‘Military Necessity’ Enough? Lincoln’S Conception Of Executive Power In Suspending Habeas Corpus In 1861, Evan Mclaughlin
Is ‘Military Necessity’ Enough? Lincoln’S Conception Of Executive Power In Suspending Habeas Corpus In 1861, Evan Mclaughlin
Seton Hall University Dissertations and Theses (ETDs)
In May 1861, President Abraham Lincoln's decision to suspend habeas corpus in Baltimore following an attack on Federal troops as they marched through Baltimore on April 19th to answer Lincoln’s call to defend the Capitol. To complicate matters further, Congress was still in recess, so they could not legislate a solution to the growing insurgency. In order to check these actions, Abraham Lincoln authorized General Scott to suspend Habeas Corpus between Baltimore and Philadelphia. When John Merryman was arrested, detained, and denied habeas corpus, Chief Justice Roger B. Taney issued an in-chambers decision, Ex Parte Merryman, to voice his …
Making Habeas Work: A Legal History, Eric M. Freedman
Making Habeas Work: A Legal History, Eric M. Freedman
Other Lectures and Presentations
The attached materials represent an early draft of the first three chapters of Professor Freedman's publication from NYU Press, Making Habeas Work: A Legal History. This is the material on which this faculty workshop is based.
Reflections On Forty Years Of Private Practice And Sustained Pro Bono Advocacy, Stephen H. Oleskey
Reflections On Forty Years Of Private Practice And Sustained Pro Bono Advocacy, Stephen H. Oleskey
Maine Law Review
I am going to address two topics. The first is the one Judge Coffin asked me to address in October 2009, when I was invited to give the 2010 Coffin Lecture: how to combine the private practice of law with an active pro bono practice. The second topic is the one Dean Peter Pitegoff and I agreed to add: a brief discussion of legal developments in national security law since 9/11. My pro bono involvement in Guantanamo Habeas litigation began in 2004 and led directly to my interest in national security law and to my recognition of how difficult it …
Federal Habeas Review Of State Court Convictions: Incoherent Law But An Essential Right, Lynn Adelman
Federal Habeas Review Of State Court Convictions: Incoherent Law But An Essential Right, Lynn Adelman
Maine Law Review
I thank the editors of the Maine Law Review for the opportunity to participate in a discussion about the present state of post-conviction review of criminal convictions. This discussion is important and timely both because the quality of the procedures by which state prisoners can obtain post-conviction review varies greatly from state to state and because state prisoners who seek federal court review of their constitutional claims by petitioning for a writ of habeas corpus face many obstacles. As a federal district judge, my experience is primarily with the later problem. Thus, in this article, I will offer a few …
The Constitution And National Security, Erwin Chemerinsky
The Constitution And National Security, Erwin Chemerinsky
Erwin Chemerinsky
No abstract provided.
Presidential Powers Including Military Tribunals In The October 2005 Term, Erwin Chemerinsky
Presidential Powers Including Military Tribunals In The October 2005 Term, Erwin Chemerinsky
Erwin Chemerinsky
No abstract provided.
Habeas As Forum Allocation: A New Synthesis, Carlos M. Vázquez
Habeas As Forum Allocation: A New Synthesis, Carlos M. Vázquez
University of Miami Law Review
The scope of habeas relief for state prisoners, especially during the decades before the Supreme Court’s 1953 decision in Brown v. Allen, is a famously disputed question—one of recognized significance for contemporary debates about the proper scope of habeas review. This Article provides a new answer. It argues that, until the enactment of Anti-Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (“AEDPA”), it was broadly accepted that state prisoners were entitled to plenary federal review of the legal and mixed law/fact questions decided against them by state courts. Until 1916, such review was provided by the Supreme Court; after 1953, …