Habeas, History, and Hermeneutics

Arizona Law Review, Volume 64, Issue 2 (Summer 2022, Forthcoming)

GWU Law School Public Law Research Paper No. 2021-31

GWU Legal Studies Research Paper No. 2021-31

35 Pages Posted: 5 Aug 2021 Last revised: 28 Sep 2021

See all articles by Jonathan R. Siegel

Jonathan R. Siegel

George Washington University Law School

Date Written: August 5, 2021

Abstract

Supreme Court Justices Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch recently proposed a radical shrinking of federal habeas corpus relief for state prisoners who are in custody pursuant to a final judgment of criminal conviction. They called for a return to the supposedly traditional principle that federal courts cannot grant habeas relief to such prisoners unless the state court that sentenced them lacked jurisdiction. This Article explains that (1) this supposedly traditional principle was not, in fact, a traditional principle of habeas, and (2) even if it were, Congress has displaced it by statute. Exploring the errors in the Justices’ arguments provides valuable lessons in the proper uses of historical materials and in the hermeneutics of statutory interpretation.

Keywords: Habeas Corpus, Federal Courts, History, Statutory Interpretation.

Suggested Citation

Siegel, Jonathan R., Habeas, History, and Hermeneutics (August 5, 2021). Arizona Law Review, Volume 64, Issue 2 (Summer 2022, Forthcoming), GWU Law School Public Law Research Paper No. 2021-31, GWU Legal Studies Research Paper No. 2021-31, Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3899955

Jonathan R. Siegel (Contact Author)

George Washington University Law School ( email )

2000 H Street, N.W.
Washington, DC 20052
United States
202-994-7453 (Phone)
202-994-5614 (Fax)

Do you have a job opening that you would like to promote on SSRN?

Paper statistics

Downloads
156
Abstract Views
420
rank
236,612
PlumX Metrics