Realigning Habeas Corpus: How Brown v. Davenport Attempts to Balance Habeas Relief with Federalism

Abstract

The writ of Habeas Corpus is one of the most important facets of the American legal system. Simply, in the event a prisoner believes that one or more of their constitutional rights were violated during trial and the state courts disagree that their violation was an issue, then the prisoner can petition the federal courts for habeas relief and have them released from prison. This legal concept dates to the signing of the Magna Carta and even to Roman law. Throughout its extensive history, the idea behind habeas corpus remained the same: to protect against illegal detention. However, habeas corpus was only available before a final judgment was entered.

The problem which faced the American legal system before Brown, Acting Warden v. Davenport was molding the idea behind habeas corpus to conform to American federalism while respecting the sovereignty of the states and federal government. The Supreme Court attempts to realign nearly 60 years of habeas corpus precedent to ensure that the time-honored right respects the sovereignty and interests of the states while balancing the interests of prisoners to ensure they are not being illegally imprisoned.

Keywords: Supreme Court, U.S., United States, Habeas Corpus, Prison, Criminal, Law, Brown, Davenport