Law Commons^™

The Myth Of The Great Writ, Leah M. Litman

Articles

Habeas corpus is known as the “Great Writ” because it supposedly protects individual liberty against government overreach and guards against wrongful detentions. This idea shapes habeas doctrine, federal courts theories, and habeas-reform proposals.

It is also incomplete. While the writ has sometimes protected individual liberty, it has also served as a vehicle for the legitimation of excesses of governmental power. A more complete picture of the writ emerges when one considers traditionally neglected areas of public law that are often treated as distinct—the law of slavery and freedom, Native American affairs, and immigration. There, habeas has empowered abusive exercises of …

Presidential Powers Including Military Tribunals In The October 2005 Term, Erwin Chemerinsky

Erwin Chemerinsky

No abstract provided.

Section 1983 Cases In The October 2004 Term, Martin A. Schwartz

Martin A. Schwartz

No abstract provided.

Jones, Lackey, And Teague, Richard Broughton

Richard Broughton

In a recent, high-profile ruling, a federal court finally recognized that a substantial delay in executing a death row inmate violated the Eighth Amendment’s ban on cruel and unusual punishments. Courts have repeatedly rejected these so-called “Lackey claims,” making the federal court’s decision in Jones v. Chappell all the more important. And yet it was deeply flawed. This paper focuses on one of the major flaws in the Jones decision that largely escaped attention: the application of the non-retroactivity rule from Teague v. Lane. By comprehensively addressing the merits of the Teague bar as applied to Lackey claims, and making …

The New Habeas Corpus In Death Penalty Cases, Larry Yackle

Faculty Scholarship

This article offers the first systematic examination of Chapter 154, United States Code, which establishes new statutory arrangements for cases in which state prisoners under sentence of death file federal habeas corpus petitions challenging their convictions or sentences. Chapter 154 was enacted as part of the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996. Yet its provisions were made applicable only in capital cases arising from states that established qualifying schemes for providing indigent death row prisoners with counsel in state postconviction proceedings. No state’s system for supplying lawyers in state court won approval and, in consequence, Chapter 154’s rules …

Presidential Powers Including Military Tribunals In The October 2005 Term, Erwin Chemerinsky

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Torturous Transfers: Examining Detainee Habeas Jurisdiction For Nonremoval Challenges And Deference To Diplomatic Assurances , Kristin E. Slawter

Washington and Lee Law Review

No abstract provided.

A Crisis In Federal Habeas Law, Eve Brensike Primus

Reviews

Everyone recognizes that federal habeas doctrine is a mess. Despite repeated calls for reform, federal judges continue to waste countless hours reviewing habeas petitions only to dismiss the vast majority of them on procedural grounds. Broad change is necessary, but to be effective, such change must be animated by an overarching theory that explains when federal courts should exercise habeas jurisdiction. In Habeas for the Twenty-First Century: Uses, Abuses, and the Future of the Great Writ, Professors Nancy King and Joseph Hoffmann offer such a theory. Drawing on history, current practice, and empirical data, King and Hoffmann find unifying themes …

Untangling The Twists Of Habeas Corpus, Larry Yackle

Faculty Scholarship

Take it from me. The one job you don't want is sorting out federal habeas corpus. By all accounts, existing arrangements are an unrelieved disaster. Yet now come Nancy King and Joseph Hoffmann with a valiant effort to set things in order. Their book describes habeas corpus as the writ currently stands, offers explanations of why and how we have come to this pass, and, most important, advances a definite plan of action for habeas in criminal cases-a way to fix what so desperately needs fixing. This is a good book, a valuable book. It is informative, essentially accurate in …

Did The Madisonian Compromise Survive Detention At Guantanamo?, Lumen N. Mulligan

Faculty Works

In this essay, I take up the Court’s less heralded second holding in Boumediene v. Bush - that a federal habeas court must have the institutional capacity to find facts, which in Boumediene itself meant that a federal district court must be available to the petitioners. Although this has gone largely unnoticed, I contend that this holding is inconsistent with the Madisonian Compromise - the standard view that the Constitution does not require jurisdiction in any federal court, except the Supreme Court. In fact, it appears that the Court adopted Justice Story’s position that the Constitution requires vesting of jurisdiction …

The Accounting: Habeas Corpus And Enemy Combatants, Emily Calhoun

Publications

The judiciary should impose a heavy burden of justification on the executive when a habeas petitioner challenges the accuracy of facts on which an enemy combatant designation rests. A heavy burden of justification will ensure that the essential institutional purposes of the writ--and legitimate, separated-powers government--are preserved, even during times of national exigency. The institutional purposes of the writ argue for robust judicial review rather than deference to the executive. Moreover, the procedural flexibility traditionally associated with the writ gives the judiciary the tools to ensure that a heavy burden of justification can be imposed.

Brief Of Salim Hamdan As Amicus Curiae, Boumediene V. Bush & Al Odah V. United States, Nos. 06-1195 & 06-1196 (U.S. Aug. 24, 2007), Neal K. Katyal

U.S. Supreme Court Briefs

No abstract provided.

Brief Of Legal Historians As Amici Curiae In Support Of Petitioners, Boumediene V. Bush, Nos. 06-1195, 06-1196 (U.S. Aug. 24, 2007), James Oldham

U.S. Supreme Court Briefs

No abstract provided.

Mostly Harmless: An Analysis Of Post-Aedpa Federal Habeas Corpus Review Of State Harmless Error Determinations, Jeffrey S. Jacobi

Michigan Law Review

Sixty years ago, in Kotteakos v. United States, the Supreme Court ruled that a small class of so-called harmless errors committed by courts did not require correction. The Court acknowledged that some judicial errors, though recognizable as errors, did not threaten the validity of criminal convictions and therefore did not quite require reversal. Specifically, the Court held that errors that violated federal statutes should be deemed harmless unless they had a "substantial and injurious effect or influence in determining the jury's verdict." While Kotteakos represented the Supreme Court's first treatment of the concept of harmlessness, other courts had a …

Deconstructing Hirota: Habeas Corpus, Citizenship, And Article Iii, Stephen I. Vladeck

Articles in Law Reviews & Other Academic Journals

The jurisdiction of the federal courts to consider habeas petitions brought by detainees held as part of the “war on terrorism” has been a popular topic for courts and commentators alike. Little attention has been paid, however, to whether the Constitution itself interposes any jurisdictional limits over such petitions. In a series of recent cases, the US government has invoked the Supreme Court’s obscure (and obtuse) 1948 decision in Hirota v. MacArthur (338 US 197) for the proposition that Article III forecloses jurisdiction over any petition brought by a detainee in foreign or international custody, including that of the “Multinational …

Brief For Petitioner Salim Ahmed Hamdan, Hamdan V. Rumsfeld, No. 05-184 (U.S. Jan. 6, 2006), Neal K. Katyal

U.S. Supreme Court Briefs

No abstract provided.

Section 1983 Cases In The October 2004 Term, Martin A. Schwartz

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

On The Adequacy Of Direct Review After The Real Id Act Of 2005, Gerald L. Neuman

NYLS Law Review

No abstract provided.

Brief Amici Curiae Of Legal Historians Listed Herein In Support Of The Petitioners, Rasul V. Bush, Nos. 03-334 & 03-343 (U.S. Jan. 14, 2004), James Oldham

U.S. Supreme Court Briefs

No abstract provided.

Petitioner's Brief, Richard B. Collins

Publications

No abstract provided.

Recent Developments, An Appeal By Any Other Name: Congress's Empty Victory Over Habeas Rights--Felker V. Turpin, 116 S. Ct. 2333 (1996), Scott Moss

Publications

No abstract provided.

Apocalypse Next Time?: The Anachronistic Attack On Habeas Corpus/Direct Review Parity, James S. Liebman

Faculty Scholarship

Today, a district court's habeas corpus review of the constitutionality of a state criminal conviction and the Supreme Court's direct review of the same question are nearly identical. Last Term, in Wright v. West, an otherwise mundane criminal procedure case, the Supreme Court rewrote the question presented to ask whether the parity between federal habeas corpus and direct appellate review should be destroyed. The Court proposed abandoning in habeas corpus an important trait shared by the two modes of review – de novo consideration of legal and mixed legal-factual questions.

To those who value meaningful habeas corpus review, the …

Federal Habeas Corpus Jurisdiction - Child Custody - State Procedures Terminating Parental Rights, Dru Hanna Schoenborn

Duquesne Law Review

The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit has held that federal habeas corpus is not available to challenge the constitutionality of Pennsylvania's parental rights termination statute.

Lehman v. Lycoming County Children's Services Agency, 648 F.2d 135 (3d Cir.), cert. granted, 102 S. Ct. 89 (1981) (No. 80-2177).

Finality And Habeas Corpus: Is The Rule That Res Judicata May Not Apply To Habeas Corpus Or Motion To Vacate Still Viable, Marilyn L. Kelley

West Virginia Law Review

No abstract provided.

Criminal Procedure--Habeas Corpus--Federal Jurisdiction Expanded, Charles J. Kaiser

West Virginia Law Review

No abstract provided.

Federal Civil Jurisdiction Of Military Justice, Chester B. Gynn Jr.

Cleveland State Law Review

Control exercised by the federal civil courts over courts-martial differs from that found in other types of cases involving the relation of federal and state courts. The federal civil courts are constitutional courts; the military courts are administrative courts established by Congress and empowered by the Constitution; while state courts receive their power from entirely different sovereigns. Thus, to determine the powers of review which federal civil courts have over courts-martial, reference must be made almost exclusively to cases involving courts-martial.

Constitutional Law - Due Process - Scope Of Inquiry In Habeas Corpus Petitions From Military Prisoner, Eugene Alkema

Michigan Law Review

Petitioners, military personnel, were convicted by courts martial of rape and murder. After exhausting military appellate remedies, they petitioned federal civil courts for writs of habeas corpus on the ground that they had been convicted in proceedings denying them basic constitutional rights. The petitions were denied. On appeal, held, affirmed, two justices dissenting. When the record shows that military courts have fairly considered all of the allegations of the petitioners and have found no denial of constitutional rights, civil courts in habeas corpus proceedings will not hear evidence on the merits of the allegations. Burns v. Wilson, 346 …

Constitutional Law-Review Of State Court Determination-Supreme Court's Vacation Of State Court Judgment Without Giving Grounds For Reversal, Marcus A. Rowden S.Ed.

Michigan Law Review

The Supreme Court of the United States granted plaintiff's petition for certiorari to review a decision of the Supreme Court of California summarily denying plaintiff's application for habeas corpus. Previously the cause had been continued to enable petitioner to secure a determination of the California Supreme Court as to whether its judgment was intended to rest on an adequate independent state ground. It was later held that a letter from the clerk of that court was not a sufficient determination of that question, and petitioner was still unable to obtain that determination. Held, judgment of the Supreme Court of …

International Law-Military Tribunals For The Trial Of War Criminals As International Courts, David S. Dewitt S.Ed.

Michigan Law Review

Petitioner, a German citizen confined in the American Zone of Occupied Germany in the custody of the United States Anny, petitioned the United States District Court, District of Columbia for a writ of habeas corpus. The respondents were the Secretary of Defense and others alleged to have directory control over the jailers in Germany. The petitioner had been convicted of war crimes by Military Tribunal IV at Nuremburg, Germany. This tribunal was established by order of General Clay, United States Military Governor and Zone Commander, pursuant to Control Council Law No. 10 which carried out the London Agreement and the …

Procedure-Availability Of Writ Of Habeas Corpus To Attack Validity Of Order Made By Court Without Jurisdiction

Washington and Lee Law Review

No abstract provided.