This paper traces the legal history of habeas corpus from its origins in the 1215 Magna Carta through its development in English and American law. It examines the writ's constitutional foundations, Abraham Lincoln's controversial suspension during the Civil War, post-Civil War expansions, Supreme Court rulings, and twentieth-century reforms including the Anti-Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996. The paper also addresses habeas corpus in the contexts of immigration, DNA testing legislation, California's post-conviction counsel system, and the procedural rules governing successive petitions. Throughout, it highlights the tension between individual liberty and governmental authority that continues to shape this fundamental legal protection.
The paper consistently uses direct quotation from legal journals, case records, and legislative testimony to support each stage of the historical argument. Rather than simply paraphrasing secondary sources, the author allows legal language to appear on its own terms, which is appropriate when precision of wording matters — as it invariably does in legal analysis.
The paper opens with the English origins of the writ and moves logically through colonial adoption, the constitutional text, Lincoln-era controversy, Reconstruction-era expansion, twentieth-century Supreme Court refinements, 1996 anti-terrorism legislation, California-specific proceedings, and finally immigration applications. Each section advances the timeline while introducing a new institutional or doctrinal dimension, culminating in a brief conclusion that restates the writ's ongoing constitutional significance.
Habeas corpus was first introduced in England in 1215 when the Magna Carta was written. When it was first used, its range was limited. Over time, the scope expanded due to jurisdictional disputes between the superior courts and local courts of England.
Habeas corpus cum causa was the form of the writ used by the courts, which "compelled the sheriff to produce the prisoner who was the subject of the courts' jurisdictional dispute" (Orye, William and Mary Law Review). A series of crucial cases, which began with the Case of the Five Knights and concluded with the Chamber's Case, questioned the "validity of commitments, previously an incidental effect of the writ, making it a major object" (Orye, William and Mary Law Review).
The courts as a rule limited the "use of the writ to challenge commitment in criminal cases before conviction. Habeas corpus relief was not available to prisoners held by a valid warrant or pursuant to the execution or judgment of a proper court. A convicted person was not entitled to the privilege of the writ because appeal was the remedy for a conviction contrary to law" (Orye, William and Mary Law Review).
The English phrase habeas corpus refers to a writ that "was a piece of paper served on a government official, saying 'You have the body of a person in prison, and we demand to know by what authority you have this person detained in custody'" (Unknown, NPR). Over the years, the writ of habeas corpus in England became the instrument that could challenge in court a random arrest by a king or sheriff.
Many law school professors note that "the writ of habeas corpus was so important to our founding fathers that they incorporated it into the United States Constitution." Leon Friedman, a law professor, states: "It sort of has this magical quality. It's a way of challenging tyranny" (Unknown, NPR).
The Habeas Corpus Act was introduced in 1679 when the English Parliament was pressured by the public to adopt the act in response to "abusive detention of persons without legal authority" (Modern History Sourcebook: Habeas Corpus Act, 1679). The act was designed to "better secure the liberty of the subject, and prevent imprisonment beyond the seas." The writ does not judge whether a prisoner is guilty; it is meant to give the prisoner the right to contest whether his or her imprisonment is valid (Kolakowski, Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology).
It was not until the late 1600s that the British colonies in America adopted habeas corpus. When the 1787 Constitutional Convention was convened, "three of the twelve state constitutions of the original thirteen colonies had a habeas corpus provision. At the time of the drafting of the Constitution, the Framers viewed habeas corpus as so fundamental that they did not expressly provide for the writ, but instead, because they assumed that people enjoyed the privilege, simply prohibited its abolishment except in certain extraordinary circumstances" (Orye, William and Mary Law Review).
Habeas corpus is an order issued by a court to the police or any arresting agency, "commanding them to produce the detained person in order to determine the legality of the arrest." The writ was established to protect against arbitrary imprisonment. Both state and federal constitutions establish habeas corpus. Article I, Section 9 of the U.S. Constitution provides that the privilege of habeas corpus shall not be suspended except in cases of rebellion or invasion, when the public safety may require it. Most state constitutions have similar stipulations.
The term habeas corpus is Latin for "you have the body." A writ of habeas corpus is often filed by prisoners who seek release. It is a "judicial mandate to a prison official ordering that an inmate be brought to the court so it can be determined whether or not that person is imprisoned lawfully and whether or not he should be released from custody." A habeas corpus petition is a "petition filed with a court by a person who objects to his own or another's detention or imprisonment. The petition must show that the court ordering the detention or imprisonment made a legal or factual error." A person serving a prison sentence is the one who most commonly files such a petition.
A habeas corpus petition may also be filed by a parent denied custody of his or her child by a trial court, or by a person who has been declared in contempt of court by a judge or threatened with jail. The writ is an important check on the "manner in which state courts pay respect to federal constitutional rights, and is the fundamental instrument for safeguarding individual freedom against arbitrary and lawless state action."
The habeas corpus writ is known as the "great writ" and is not meant to relitigate state trials. Its prevailing legal question is "whether the petitioner's custody simpliciter is valid as measured by the Constitution." The writ functions differently in civil and criminal contexts. Criminally, it is used by the petitioner to inquire about the legality of his or her confinement, and the constitutionality of a state criminal conviction may be examined by a writ of federal habeas corpus. Civilly, the writ is used to "challenge the validity of child custody and deportations."
Federal courts were given the power to grant the writ of habeas corpus by the Judiciary Act of 1789. This writ was available to prisoners seeking to challenge their confining court's jurisdiction or detention by the President without a lawful course of action (Kolakowski, Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology). However, it "only applied to federal prisoners and could only be used to challenge the jurisdiction of the sentencing body" (Orye, William and Mary Law Review).
In 1867, the application of the writ was expanded to include state prisoners, although the inquiry remained limited to the sentencing body's jurisdiction. The Act of 1867 did not clearly define the writ's extent or the procedures connected with it, causing courts during the late nineteenth century to follow the "common law practice that res judicata did not apply to a dismissed habeas corpus petition, and prisoners were free to successively petition other courts" (Kolakowski, Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology). This caused confusion when denial procedures became accessible for petitions, with some state courts "denying habeas corpus appeals based on res judicata, and others using an intermediate approach allowing smaller numbers of successive petitions" (Kolakowski, Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology). These provisions remained unchanged until the twentieth century (Orye, William and Mary Law Review).
During the American Civil War, Abraham Lincoln suspended the right of habeas corpus by proclamation in 1861. Congress "explicitly empowered Lincoln to suspend the privilege of the writ during the war in 1863." Several states have since suspended the privilege when martial law has been declared by state executives during strikes.
President Abraham Lincoln was a strong defender of law, liberty, and the Constitution, but made some questionable decisions when he "suspended individual liberties, shutting down anti-war and anti-administration newspapers and jailing dissidents" (Kleinfeld, History Today). When Lincoln suspended habeas corpus he obtained "more power than any other individual in America before or since" (Kleinfeld, History Today). The force of the President is subject to court regulation through habeas corpus. "With it, a judge can demand that a prisoner be brought before him to evaluate whether the prisoner's detention is legal. Without it, an unlawfully incarcerated individual has no legal remedy. If Lincoln did not constitutionally have the power to suspend habeas corpus, then by doing so he fundamentally altered the freedom of American citizens" (Kleinfeld, History Today).
On May 26, 1861, in Baltimore, a case concerning treason tested the issue. A lieutenant "in a group pledged to armed resistance against the government, John Merryman, petitioned the court for habeas corpus after being seized in his bed at two in the morning and confined at Fort McHenry" (Kleinfeld, History Today). Brevet Major-General George Cadwalader was ordered by Chief Justice Roger Taney of the Supreme Court to bring Merryman to court to determine whether he had been legally imprisoned. The general refused this order, and the officer who represented him in court explained "that Merryman was charged with treason and that the general had permission from the president to suspend the writ if he thought it necessary. Nonetheless, the general 'respectfully requests that you will postpone further action upon this case, until he can receive instructions from the president of the United States'" (Kleinfeld, History Today).
Taney refused to comply with this request and ordered the general to appear in court, escorted by a marshal. The marshal, however, was not allowed entrance to the fort and was told "that there was no answer to my card" (Kleinfeld, History Today), upon which Taney issued his opinion. The suspension of habeas corpus was condemned by Taney, who also denounced "the authorization of a military officer to suspend it according to his judgment, and the martial law that Lincoln created by ignoring the Bill of Rights' protection for a 'person not subject to the rules and articles of war'" (Kleinfeld, History Today). The strongest argument offered by Taney was that President Lincoln exercised a power not granted to him by the Constitution, which is detailed in Article I.
When Fort Sumter was fired upon in 1861 by the South, President Lincoln made a speech before a special session of Congress to defend his suspension of habeas corpus. He stated that "his presidential oath required that he faithfully execute the laws," and asked: "Are all the laws, but one, to go unexecuted, and the government itself go to pieces, lest that one be violated?" (Kleinfeld, History Today). Although this was a practical argument, it possessed no legal merit. Lincoln further stated: "It was not believed that any law was violated. The Constitution does not expressly prohibit the president from suspending the writ, and it is unreasonable that a danger should run its course until Congress can be assembled" (Kleinfeld, History Today).
Taney had American legal and legislative history to support his position. "When President Thomas Jefferson wanted to suspend the writ to deal with Aaron Burr and his co-conspirators, he requested the authorization of Congress; no one suggested that Jefferson could exercise the power without congressional approval" (Kleinfeld, History Today). Chief Justice Marshall's Ex Parte Bollman and Swartwout was also quoted by Taney, which stated: "If at any time the public safety should require the suspension of the powers vested by this act, habeas corpus, in the courts of the United States, it is for the legislature to say so. Significantly, in English law — the basis for American law — the power to suspend the writ belongs to Parliament" (Kleinfeld, History Today).
It was argued by some that these precedents did not apply to the case at hand, since they referred to a peacetime context and Aaron Burr's case involved a civil rebellion. However, the habeas corpus clause in the Constitution referred to precisely the type of conflict exhibited during the Civil War — "cases of Rebellion" — which provided further evidence that Taney's argument was valid and that "Lincoln was not constitutionally entitled to suspend the writ of habeas corpus" (Kleinfeld, History Today).
Lincoln ignored judicial authority on constitutionality and appropriated a Congressional power, thus increasing the "executive branch's power at the expense of the legislative and judicial branches, disturbing the delicate system of checks and balances which protect American citizens from oppression" (Kleinfeld, History Today). Even if a court's orders are wrong, they are binding; Lincoln was required to restore habeas corpus when so ordered by Taney. Another important issue that arose from Lincoln's suspension was that he seized a power considered too dangerous for the president to hold under the Constitution, thereby creating a precedent for future presidents. Lincoln's example could be followed by others who chose to disregard the court's orders.
You’re 34% through this paper. Sign up to read the remaining 4 sections.
Sign Up Now — Instant Access Already a member? Log inAlways verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.