Also known as: great writ · habeas corpus · writ of habeas corpus
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
A judicial order directing a custodian to produce a detained person before a court so that the legality of the detention may be examined. The writ protects individuals against arbitrary or unlawful imprisonment by requiring the government to justify continued custody before a neutral decisionmaker.
Karim, a foreign analyst seized overseas and held indefinitely in a naval brig under a statute that abolishes habeas review, petitions a federal court. The statute routes all challenges to a financial review commission that relies solely on redacted data and cannot order release. The court grants the petition because the commission supplies no meaningful substitute allowing Karim to contest the factual basis for detention or seek release.
During an armed invasion, Congress passes a statute suspending the writ for all persons detained as suspected saboteurs. Gregory Gates, a U.S. citizen held without charges, files a petition asserting the suspension exceeds constitutional limits. The court examines whether public safety truly requires the suspension and whether the statute meets the narrow conditions of Article I Section 9.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Grace Gupta, detained by federal authorities after a disputed election-related protest, seeks habeas relief challenging the legality of her custody. The government argues the case presents a nonjusticiable political question. The court rejects the argument and proceeds to the merits because the writ tests the executive's authority to detain regardless of the surrounding political context.
Gino Giordano, convicted after a confession obtained in violation of Miranda, files a habeas petition claiming the confession was involuntary. The government relies on a later statute purporting to override the Miranda rule. The court grants relief because the constitutional protections enforced through the writ cannot be displaced by statute.
Gareth Glover, indicted by information rather than grand jury under state law, petitions for habeas relief asserting a violation of fundamental rights. The court denies the petition because the writ does not extend to every procedural irregularity that might have been available under common-law practice.
Giselle Guerrero, convicted of murder after the state required her to disprove malice, petitions for habeas relief on the ground that the allocation of the burden violated due process. The court grants the writ because the prosecution must prove every element of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt.
A substitute must permit the detainee to challenge the legal authority for indefinite detention, contest the government's factual findings, introduce exculpatory evidence discovered after the initial proceedings, and seek an order of release if custody is unlawful.
Congress may suspend the writ only in cases of rebellion or invasion when public safety requires it. Any other attempt to withdraw the writ or replace it with an inadequate process violates the Suspension Clause.
Yes. When the United States exercises complete control over the place of detention, the Suspension Clause requires either preservation of habeas review or a meaningful substitute even for alien enemy combatants held outside formal U.S. territory.
The statute is unconstitutional. Courts will grant relief from the statutory bar and permit judicial review of the detention because the Suspension Clause forbids categorical withdrawal of the writ absent a valid suspension or a functional equivalent.
…maintained in his dissent. Id. , at 59 et seq. Today we would ask with him: ". . . who could hold for a moment, when the writ of habeas corpus cannot be suspended by the legislature itself, either in the general government or most of the States, without an express constitutional permission, that all other writs and laws could be…