Habeas Corpus, Protection, and Extraterritorial Constitutional Rights: A Reply to Stephen Vladeck’s 'Insular Thinking About Habeas'
Fordham University School of Law
July 24, 2012
97 Iowa Law Review Bulletin 34 (2012)
Fordham Law Legal Studies Research Paper No. 2116261
This short essay is an exchange with Professor Steve Vladeck's about my Article entitled: Boumediene, Munaf, and the Supreme Court’s Misreading of the Insular Cases, 97 Iowa Law Review 101 (2011). My Article showed that the Supreme Court’s landmark ruling in Boumediene v. Bush relied on a demonstrably incorrect understanding of key precedents known as the Insular Cases, which arose from actions of the United States military and the new civil governments of the islands acquired by the United States at the turn of the twentieth century — Puerto Rico, the Philippines, Hawaii, and for a time Cuba. This reply to Professor Vladeck discusses how noncitizens outside the sovereign territory of the United States were understood at the time of the Insular Cases to lack protection from the Constitution, both its individual rights provisions and the Habeas Suspension Clause. I also highlight two little-known Supreme Court cases from the era of the Insular Cases which help illuminate the Court's understandings of the Suspension Clause.
Number of Pages in PDF File: 7
Keywords: Constitution, habeas, Suspension Clause, extraterritoriality, protection, Insular Cases, BoumedieneAccepted Paper Series
Date posted: July 24, 2012 ; Last revised: March 20, 2014
© 2014 Social Science Electronic Publishing, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
This page was processed by apollo5 in 0.265 seconds