Habeas Corpus: The Limitation of the Writ Creating Issues for Prisoners
September 2024 | Haley Zavsza Zavsza (Staff Writer)
In the American judicial system, “you have the body,” or, in Latin terms, the writ of habeas corpus; but do you? In 2023, the Jones v. Hendrix [1] Supreme Court 6-3 ruling decided that imprisoned people who have filed for post-conviction relief can be barred from filing a second time, even if they’re innocent of the crime they have been incarcerated for. Rather than through habeas petition, Congress now requires prisoners to challenge sentences in the sentencing courts. This new ruling faced criticism when prisoners were restricted from seeking habeas relief based on a new interpretation of criminal stature. Even though habeas corpus is not a right, is it unconstitutional for prisoners to be barred from habeas relief? If not, a course of action should be taken to reform the post-conviction relief process. The Jones v. Hendrix ruling restricts prisoners from filing habeas petitions, highlighting an ongoing trend in the last thirty years of a lack of retribution from Congress and the judicial branch toward wrongfully incarcerated people.
History of Habeas Corpus
The writ of habeas corpus is used in the U.S. federal court system to bring a prisoner or detainee before the court to determine whether the confinement is lawful. It was first introduced in the U.S. court system in the Judiciary Act of 1789, authorizing the federal courts to grant habeas relief to federal prisoners. [2]
In the antebellum period U.S., the court used habeas corpus to free slaves and block their return to the South or to cooperate with the South to recapture enslaved people. [3] The Alabama court in 1853, Field v. Walker, ruled that enslavers had a right to a jury trial before an enslaved person could be taken from them. [4] The following year, the Kentucky Court of Appeals in Weddington v. Sam Sloan upheld the power of the master to recapture enslaved people discharged through habeas corpus. [5] As a result, four Northern states guaranteed a jury trial for habeas corpus involving slavery. In these jury trials, courts often denied habeas relief to enslaved people. After the Civil War, the Judiciary Act expanded to allow habeas relief to prisoners even if they were held in custody for violating federal law. [6]
Beginning the 30-year lack of advocacy toward incarcerated individuals, The Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act 1996 [7] (AEDPA) significantly changed and instituted limitations on the habeas corpus writ. AEDPA increased penalties for crimes involving terrorism, provided restitution for victims of terrorism, and set new legal procedures for capital cases. [8] These reforms restricted a habeas petitioner’s ability to file a second habeas petition, stating that a habeas claim is only successful when the court decisions are conflicting, involved in an unreasonable application of a clear-cut federal law, or based on an unreasonable determination of facts from the evidence presented at state court hearings.
The Detainee Treatment Act of 2005 (DTA) and the Military Commissions Act of 2006 (MCA) [9] attempted to limit the writ of habeas corpus further. The DTA prohibited the inhuman treatment of enemy combatants and listed the order of operations for interrogations in the United States. [10] The MCA was an act that followed the DTA, which required prisoners who were held in Guantanamo Bay to go through military commissions and then seek appeal in the D.C. District Court rather than using habeas corpus to access the federal courts. [11] However, in 2008, the Supreme Court case (5-4 ruling) Boumediene v. Bush [12] made it clear that enemy combatants who were not American and were being held outside the United States had the constitutional right to habeas corpus through the Suspension Clause. The suspension clause guarantees the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus except in cases of rebellion or invasion. [13]
Jones v. Hendrix Case Facts
The 2023 Supreme Court case, Jones v. Hendrix, [14] provides the most recent limitation on habeas corpus. Marcus DeAngelo Jones, convicted by a jury on one count of making false statements to acquire a firearm and two counts of possessing a firearm as a felon, appealed, and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit affirmed. The district court initially denied Jones’s motion to vacate his sentence because it was illegally imposed. Still, the Eighth Circuit reversed, resentencing him on one count of possessing a firearm as a felon instead of two. Jones filed for a second habeas petition on account of a new interpretation of criminal stature, but it was dismissed. 28 U.S.C. § 2255 does not allow a prisoner asserting a change in criminal statute to bypass AEDPA’s restrictions on second filings of a habeas petition, and according to §2255(e), must challenge their sentences in the sentencing court. [15]
Prisoner Affected by Jones v. Hendrix Ruling
Following the ruling of Jones v. Hendrix, many prisoners were negatively affected, including a man named Samuel Hogsett. Samuel Hogsett is currently incarcerated for a 30-year sentence for multiple felonies: possession of a firearm, possession with intent to distribute 0.5 grams of crack cocaine, and possession of a gun in the interest of a drug-trafficking crime. [16]
The new felonies resulted in Hogsett having three or more violent felonies, classifying him as an Armed Career Criminal. Being a Armed Career Criminal meant he would have had to serve a sentence between 15 years to life for his firearm possession charge. [17] However, in 2021, the criminal stature of a violent felony was narrowed in the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling in Borden v. United States. [18] Before the decision of Jones v. Hendrix, Hogsett assumed he would no longer be classified as an Armed Career Criminal, thus qualifying for release, since one of his previous convictions no longer qualified. But after the Jones v. Hendrix ruling, Hogsett was barred from filing a second habeas petition and was sent to the lower courts to dismiss his case. [19]
Supreme Court Arguments in Defense
The Supreme Court rooted its reasoning in a lack of subject matter jurisdiction and on the count that §2255(e) does not allow prisoners to find a way around the AEDPA’s restrictions. AEDPA restricts a second or successive §2255 motions by filing a habeas petition (§2241). Jones attempted to argue that the ‘savings clause’ in §2255 uses present tense words, meaning that §2241 is available whenever a prisoner cannot file a §2255 motion. [20]However, this was rejected due to AEDPA’s changes that prevented §2241 from being available at any time. Jones then argues that denying him a §2241 claim is unconstitutional, which Chief Justice Marshall claims is false because a habeas court has no power to re-examine the charges for which it was delivered based on Ex parte Watkins, 28 U.S. 193 (1830). [21] Thus, every argument against his barring of habeas petition was unpersuasive, resulting in the majority (6-3) ruling against Jones. The Jones v. Hendrix ruling and establishing §2255 aimed to alleviate the burden on the courts since they were overwhelmed with habeas petitions. [22] The Supreme Court’s solution to the exceedingly high number of habeas petitions was to have the prisoners seek review in the sentencing courts. [23] Thus, the result of §2255 only allows prisoners to file habeas petitions for “unusual circumstances,” creating barriers for prisoners seeking relief from the sentencing court. [24]
Conclusion
The Jones v. Hendrix ruling brings to light ongoing issues regarding the writ of habeas corpus and its limitations negatively impacting incarcerated individuals, starting in 1996 with the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act, going into 2006 with the Military Commissions Act, and to the new ruling. The writ of habeas corpus is narrowing, impacting prisoners and even barring them from filing a habeas petition. In the past, anyone incarcerated in federal prison could file a habeas corpus petition once the conviction was finalized. The new ruling, even though it aids the Supreme Court, does not aid prisoners. If a prisoner forfeits his freedom by challenging his conviction once before, then actions should be taken to allow prisoners greater habeas petition opportunities than just one time.
Sources
. Jones v. Hendrix. Thomas, Clarence. (2022)
Habeas corpus | Wex | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute.” 2022.
Naylor, Chris. “You have the body": Habeas Corpus Case Records of the U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Columbia, 1820-1863.”
Gregory, Anthony. The Power of Habeas Corpus in America: From the King’s Prerogative to the War on Terror. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2013.
Rehnquist, William H. n.d. “Securities and Exchange Commission v. Sloan.”
Ibid.
Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (AEDPA).” 2022.
Ibid.
Legal Information Institute, ‘habeas corpus. 2024.
Statement on Signing the Detainee Treatment Act.” n.d. Teaching American History.
Ibid.
Kennedy, Anthony M. Boumediene v. Bush. (2007)
Naylor, Chris. “You have the body": Habeas Corpus Case Records of the U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Columbia, 1820-1863.”
Jones v. Hendrix. Thomas, Clarence. (2022)
Ibid.
Weill, Elizabeth, Meg O'Connor, and Aja Arnold. “Supreme Court Jones v. Hendrix Ruling is Hurting Innocent People.” (2023)
Ibid.
Kagan, Elena. “Borden v. United States.” (2020)
Ibid.
Jones v. Hendrix. Thomas, Clarence. (2022)
Ibid.
Harvard Law Review. “Jones v. Hendrix.” (2023)
Ibid.
Ibid.