Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/21pdf/20-826_p702.pdf
Page Number: 13.0

Cite as:  596 U. S. ____ (2022) 

9 

Opinion of the Court 

Pet., at 202–203; Bator 471–472.  A perceived “error in the 
judgment or proceedings, under and by virtue of which the 
party  is  imprisoned,  constitute[d]  no  ground  for”  relief. 
Ex parte Siebold, 100 U. S. 371, 375 (1880).  Instead, a ha-
beas court could “examin[e] only the power and authority of
the court to act, not the correctness of its conclusions.”  Har-
lan v. McGourin, 218 U. S. 442, 448 (1910).  To be sure, the 
line between mere errors and jurisdictional defects was not 
always a “luminous beacon” and it evolved over time.  Bator 
470;  Edwards  v.  Vannoy,  593  U. S.  ___,  ___  (2021) 
(GORSUCH, J., concurring)  (slip  op.,  at  5).    But  this  Court 
generally sought to police the doctrine’s boundaries in cases 
involving federal and state prisoners alike.1 

By 1953, however, federal habeas practice began to take
on a very different shape.  That year in Brown v. Allen this 
Court held that a state-court judgment “is not res judicata” 
in federal habeas proceedings with respect to a petitioner’s 
federal constitutional claims.  344 U. S. 443, 458 (1953).  A 
—————— 

1 See,  e.g.,  Ex  parte  Reed,  100  U. S.  13,  23  (1879)  (distinguishing  be-
tween  “erroneous  and  voidable”  and  “absolutely  void”  judgments);  see 
also  Knewel v. Egan, 268 U. S. 442, 445–447 (1925) (“[T]he judgment of 
state  courts  in  criminal  cases  will  not  be  reviewed  on  habeas  corpus 
merely because some right under the Constitution . . . is alleged to have 
been  denied  to  the  person  convicted”);  Henry  v.  Henkel,  235  U. S.  219, 
228–229  (1914);  Glasgow  v.  Moyer,  225  U. S.  420,  427–429  (1912); 
Markuson v. Boucher, 175 U. S. 184, 187 (1899); Tinsley v. Anderson, 171 
U. S. 101, 106 (1898); In re Eckart, 166 U. S. 481, 482–483 (1897); Berge-
mann v. Backer, 157 U. S. 655, 658–659 (1895); Andrews v. Swartz, 156 
U. S. 272, 276 (1895); In re Jugiro, 140 U. S. 291, 297 (1891); In re Wood, 
140 U. S. 278, 286–287 (1891); Ex parte Bigelow, 113 U. S. 328, 330–331 
(1885);  Ex  parte  Crouch,  112  U. S.  178,  180  (1884);  Ex parte  Parks,  93 
U. S.  18,  21  (1876);  1  H.  Black,  Law  of  Judgments  §§  170,  254  (2d  ed. 
1902);  S.  Thompson,  Void  Sentences,  4  Crim.  L.  Mag.  797,  798–799 
(1883).    This  Court  eventually  came to  view  the  “limited”  class  of  void 
judgments  to  include  “(i)  convictions  based  on  assertedly  unconstitu-
tional statutes” and “(ii) detentions based upon an allegedly illegal [suc-
cessive] sentence.”  Stone v. Powell, 428 U. S. 465, 476, and n. 8 (1976) 
(citing Ex parte Siebold, 100 U. S. 371 (1880); Ex parte Lange, 18 Wall. 
163 (1874); Bator 465–474).