Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
Habeas corpus (/ ˈ h eɪ b i ə s ˈ k ɔːr p ə s / ⓘ; from Medieval Latin, lit. ' you should have the body ') [1] is an equitable remedy [2] by which a report can be made to a court alleging the unlawful detention or imprisonment of an individual, and requesting that the court order the individual's custodian (usually a prison official) to bring the prisoner to court, to determine ...
In United States law, habeas corpus (/ ˈ h eɪ b i ə s ˈ k ɔːr p ə s /) is a recourse challenging the reasons or conditions of a person's confinement under color of law.A petition for habeas corpus is filed with a court that has jurisdiction over the custodian, and if granted, a writ is issued directing the custodian to bring the confined person before the court for examination into ...
The Habeas Corpus Act of 1867 (sess. ii, chap. 28, 14 Stat. 385) is an act of Congress that significantly expanded the jurisdiction of federal courts to issue writs of habeas corpus. [1]
The principle of habeas corpus is codified in the US Constitution in article I(9)(2), commonly known as the 'Suspension Clause'. This provides that 'the privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it'. [10]
Department of Homeland Security v. Thuraissigiam, 591 U.S. ___ (2020), was a United States Supreme Court case involving whether the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996, which limits habeas corpus judicial review of the decisions of immigration officers, violates the Suspension Clause of Article One of the U.S. Constitution.
This category is for articles about court cases that interpret the statutes and procedures that govern habeas corpus petitions in the United States.Cases in which habeas was merely the process by which the case reached the court, but which did not include a substantive discussion of habeas corpus itself, should not be included.
Hill v. McDonough, 547 U.S. 573 (2006) – Challenging constitutionality of the execution method is a §1983 lawsuit, not a habeas corpus petition, and thus not subject to the procedural bar on successive petitions. Baze v. Rees, 553 U.S. 35 (2008) – Kentucky's lethal injection method using sodium thiopental is constitutional. Glossip v.
Berghuis v. Thompkins, 560 U.S. 370 (2010), is a landmark decision by the Supreme Court of the United States in which the Court held that, unless and until a criminal suspect explicitly states that they are relying on their right to remain silent, their voluntary statements may be used in court and police may continue to question them.