Ex parte Dorr
| Decision Date | 01 January 1845 |
| Citation | 44 U.S. 103,11 L.Ed. 514,3 How. 103 |
| Parties | EX PARTE DORR |
| Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
Mr. TREADWELL moved for a writ of habeas corpus to bring up Thomas W. Dorr, of Rhode Island, under the following circumstances:
He stated that Dorr was charged with levying war against the state of Rhode Island, and sentenced to the state's prison for life, in June, 1844; that upon the trial a point of law was raised, whether treason could be committed against a state, but the court would not permit counsel to argue it; that a motion was made to suspend the sentence until a writ of error could be sued out to bring the case before the Supreme Court of the United States, but the court refused to suspend it. He then read affidavits to show that personal access to Dorr was denied, in consequence of which his authority could not be obtained for an application for such a writ. The present motion for a habeas corpus was based upon this fact. There was no other mode of ascertaining whether or not it was Dorr's wish that his case should be brought up to this court. Under the 14th section of the Judiciary Act, the power to issue writs of habeas corpus was vested in the judges of the United States' courts. 3 Story's Com. tit. Jurisdiction, 588, 590, 594, 595, 603, 608, 610, 625.
The case was in itself proper to be brought up under the 25th section of the Judiciary Act, as the decision of the state court was thought to be inconsistent with the Constitution of the United States.
Thomas W. Dorr was convicted before the Supreme Court of Rhode Island, at March term, 1844, of treason against the state of Rhode Island, and sentenced to the state's prison for life. And it appears from the affidavits of Francis C. Treadwell, a counsellor at law of this court, and others, that personal access to Dorr, in his confinement, to ascertain whether he desires a writ of error to remove the record of his conviction to this court, has been refused. On this ground the above application has been made.
Have the court power to issue a writ of habeas corpus in this case? This is a preliminary question, and must be first considered.
The original jurisdiction of this court is limited by the Constitution to cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers, and consuls, and where a state is a party. Its appellate jurisdiction is regulated by acts of Congress. Under the common law, it can exercise no jurisdiction.
As this case cannot be brought under the head of original jurisdiction; if sustainable, it must be under the appellate power.
The 14th section of the Judiciary Act of 1789 provides, ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Johnson v. Bauman
...imprisoned for acts taken to implement federal law or foreign officials whose acts implicated the law of nations); Ex parte Dorr , 44 U.S. 3 How. 103, 105, 11 L.Ed. 514 (1845). Not long after the Act's passage, the Supreme Court adopted an exhaustion requirement for state prisoners seeking ......
-
U.S. v. Holland
...statute contemplates the production of prisoners, state or federal, "to testify". 28 U.S.C. § 2241(c)(5); see Ex parte Dorr, 44 U.S. (3 How.) 103, 105, 11 L.Ed. 514 (1845). For some reason not explained, however, the United States Attorney did not present the matter to a grand jury nor did ......
-
Fay v. Noia, 84
...at first delayed for several reasons. The first Judiciary Act did not extend federal habeas to prisoners in state custody, Ex parte Dorr, 3 How. 103, 11 L.Ed. 514; and shortly after Congress removed this limitation in 1867, it withdrew from this Court jurisdiction of appeals from habeas dec......
-
Lehman v. Lycoming County Children's Services Agency
...to testify." 1 Stat. 81-82 (1789). 11 While this limitation on federal habeas power was often merely implicit in the early cases, in Ex parte Dorr the Supreme Court made explicit that federal courts unqualifiedly lacked the power to issue a habeas corpus writ to any person in custody under ......
-
Getting out of this mess: steps toward addressing and avoiding inordinate delay in capital cases.
...habeas jurisdiction for prisoners in United States or state custody who are citizens of a foreign state). See also Ex parte Dorr, 44 U.S. 103 (1845) (federal courts cannot issue writ to release state (103) Judiciary Act, ch. 28, [sections] 1, 14 Stat. 385, 385 (1867). (104) See Max Rosenn, ......
-
A Felicitous Meme: the Eleventh Circuit Solves the Preiser Puzzle?
...J., dissenting).30. See Felker v. Turpin, 518 U.S. 651, 659 (1996); Act of Feb. 5, 1867, Ch. 28, 14 Stat. 385.31. See Ex parte Dorr, 44 U.S. 103, 105 (1844).32. Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971).33. I.N.S. v. St. Cyr, 533 U.S. 289, 342 (2......