skip navigation


Register for Latest Research

Stay Informed
Register with NCJRS to receive NCJRS's biweekly e-newsletter JUSTINFO and additional periodic emails from NCJRS and the NCJRS federal sponsors that highlight the latest research published or sponsored by the Office of Justice Programs.

NCJRS Abstract

The document referenced below is part of the NCJRS Virtual Library collection. To conduct further searches of the collection, visit the Virtual Library. See the Obtain Documents page for direction on how to access resources online, via mail, through interlibrary loans, or in a local library.


NCJ Number: 97418 Find in a Library
Title: Habeas Corpus - The Supreme Court and the Congress
Journal: Ohio State Law Journal  Volume:44  Issue:2  Dated:(1983)  Pages:367-391
Author(s): S A Saltzburg
Date Published: 1983
Page Count: 25
Type: Historical Overview
Format: Article
Language: English
Country: United States of America
Annotation: This article illustrates how the U.S. Supreme Court has, at times, acted as though it were writing the habeas corpus statute rather than interpreting it and concludes that the Court's decision in Brown v. Allen is its best effort at statutory interpretation; the article argues that post-Brown cases have not shown sufficient deference to the provisions of the habeas corpus statute.
Abstract: The writ's roots in the common law are described, and the provisions for habeas corpus accorded by the U.S. Constitution and by the Judiciary act of 1789 are discussed. Further, State prisoners' inability to avail themselves of Federal habeas corpus prior to the Civil War is noted. Attention focuses on the Court's early decisions interpreting the Judiciary Act, and evidence is supplied to suggest that lower Federal courts did not believe the Supreme Court's decisions on habeas corpus jurisdiction were applicable to them. The enactment of the Habeas Corpus Act in 1867 is discussed, and Congress' intent is considered. Brown v. Allen is examined as the case that firmly established that all Federal constitutional claims may be heard through the writ of habeas corpus. This decision is believed to be a sound reading of Congress' intent in the 1867 habeas corpus statute. However, the Court's decision in Fay v. Noia is criticized; the Court is believed to have adopted a view without demonstrating that it was intended by the drafters of the habeas corpus statute. The Court's decision in Stone v. Powell is determined to be consistent with the Federal habeas corpus statute. Finally, legislation before Congress to modify the habeas corpus statute is discussed. Included are 169 footnotes.
Index Term(s): Habeas corpus; US Supreme Court decisions
To cite this abstract, use the following link:

*A link to the full-text document is provided whenever possible. For documents not available online, a link to the publisher's website is provided. Tell us how you use the NCJRS Library and Abstracts Database - send us your feedback.