Opinion ID: 106548
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: departure from history.

Text: The history of federal habeas corpus jurisdiction, I believe, leaves no doubt that today's decision constitutes a square rejection of long-accepted principles governing the nature and scope of the Great Writ. [1] Habeas corpus ad subjiciendum is today, as it has always been, a fundamental safeguard against unlawful custody. The importance of this prerogative writ, requiring the body of a person restrained of liberty to be brought before the court so that the lawfulness of the restraint may be determined, was recognized in the Constitution, [2] and the first Judiciary Act gave the federal courts authority to issue the writ agreeable to the principles and usages of law. [3] Although the wording of earlier statutory provisions has been changed, the basic question before the court to which the writ is addressed has always been the same: in the language of the present statute, on the books since 1867, is the detention complained of in violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States? Supra, p. 448. Detention can occur in many contexts, and in each the scope of judicial inquiry will differ. Thus a child may be detained by a parent, an alien excluded by an immigration official, or a citizen arrested by a policeman and held without being brought to a magistrate. But the custody with which we are here concerned is that resulting from a judgment of criminal conviction and sentence by a court of law. And the question before us is the circumstances under which that custody may be held to be inconsistent with the commands of the Federal Constitution. What does history show? 1. Pre-1915 period. The formative stage of the development of habeas corpus jurisdiction may be said to have ended in 1915, the year in which Frank v. Mangum, 237 U. S. 309, was decided. During this period the federal courts, on applications for habeas corpus complaining of detention pursuant to a judgment of conviction and sentence, purported to examine only the jurisdiction of the sentencing tribunal. In the leading case of Ex parte Watkins, 3 Pet. 193, the Court stated: An imprisonment under a judgment cannot be unlawful, unless that judgment be an absolute nullity; and it is not a nullity if the court has general jurisdiction of the subject, although it should be erroneous. 3 Pet., at 203. Many subsequent decisions, dealing with both state and federal prisoners, and involving both original applications to this Court for habeas corpus and review of lower court decisions, reaffirmed the limitation of the writ to consideration of the sentencing court's jurisdiction over the person of the defendant and the subject matter of the suit. E. g., Ex parte Parks, 93 U. S. 18; Andrews v. Swartz, 156 U. S. 272; In re Belt, 159 U. S. 95; In re Moran, 203 U. S. 96. The concept of jurisdiction, however, was subjected to considerable strain during this period, and the strain was not lessened by the fact that until the latter part of the last century, federal criminal convictions were not generally reviewable by the Supreme Court. [4] The expansion of the definition of jurisdiction occurred primarily in two classes of cases: (1) those in which the conviction was for violation of an allegedly unconstitutional statute, and (2) those in which the Court viewed the detention as based on some claimed illegality in the sentence imposed, as distinguished from the judgment of conviction. An example of the former is Ex parte Siebold, 100 U. S. 371, in which the Court considered on its merits the claim that the acts under which the indictments were found were unconstitutional, reasoning that [a]n unconstitutional law is void, and is as no law, and therefore if the laws are unconstitutional and void, the Circuit Court acquired no jurisdiction of the causes. 100 U. S., at 376-377. [5] An example of the latter is Ex parte Lange, 18 Wall. 163, in which this Court held that if a valid sentence had been carried out, and if the governing statute permitted only one sentence, the sentencing judge lacked jurisdiction to impose further punishment: [W]hen the prisoner . . . by reason of a valid judgment, had fully suffered one of the alternative punishments to which alone the law subjected him, the power of the court to punish further was gone. 18 Wall., at 176. [6] It was also during this period that Congress, in 1867, first made habeas corpus available by statute to prisoners held under state authority. Act of February 5, 1867, c. 28, § 1, 14 Stat. 385. In this 1867 Act the Court now seems to find justification for today's decision, relying on the statement of one of its proponents that the bill was coextensive with all the powers that can be conferred on the courts and judges of the United States. Cong. Globe, 39th Cong., 1st Sess. 4151. But neither the statute itself, its legislative history, nor its subsequent interpretation lends any support to the view that habeas corpus jurisdiction since 1867 has been exercisable whether or not the state detention complained of rested on decision of a federal question. First, there is nothing in the language of the Act which spoke of the availability of the writ to prisoners restrained of . . . liberty in violation of the constitution. . .to suggest that there was any change in the nature of the writ as applied to one held pursuant to a judgment of conviction. The language was that typically employed in habeas corpus cases, and, as we have seen, it was not believed that a person so held was restrained in violation of law if the sentencing court had personal and subject matter jurisdiction. Rather, the change accomplished by the language of the Act related to the classes of prisoners (in particular, state as well as federal) for whom the writ would be available. Second, what little legislative history there is does not suggest any change in the nature of the writ. The extremely brief debates indicated only a lack of understanding as to what the Act would accomplish, coupled with an effort by the proponents to make it clear that the purpose was to extend the availability of the writ to persons not then covered; there was no indication of any intent to alter its substantive scope. [7] Thus, less than 20 years after enactment, a congressional committee could say of the 1867 Act that it was not contemplated by its framers or . . . properly . . . construed to authorize the overthrow of the final judgments of the State courts of general jurisdiction, by the inferior Federal judges . . . . [8] Third, cases decided under the Act during this period made it clear that the Court did not regard the Act as changing the character of the writ. In considering the lawfulness of the detention of state prisoners, the Court continued to confine itself to questions it regarded as jurisdictional. See, e. g., In re Rahrer, 140 U. S. 545; Harkrader v. Wadley, 172 U. S. 148; Pettibone v. Nichols, 203 U. S. 192. And the Court repeatedly held that habeas corpus was not available to a state prisoner to consider errors, even constitutional errors, that did not go to the jurisdiction of the sentencing court. E. g., In re Wood, 140 U. S. 278; Andrews v. Swartz, 156 U. S. 272; Bergemann v. Backer, 157 U. S. 655. At the same time, in dealing with applications by state prisoners the Court developed the doctrine of exhaustion of state remedies, a doctrine now embodied in 28 U. S. C. § 2254. In Ex parte Royall, 117 U. S. 241, the prisoner had brought federal habeas corpus seeking release from his detention pending a state prosecution, and alleging that the statute under which he was to be tried was void under the Contract Clause. The power of the federal court to act in this case, if the allegations could be established, was clear since under accepted principles the State would have lacked jurisdiction to detain the prisoner. But the Court observed that the question of constitutionality would be open to the prisoner at his state trial and, absent any showing of urgency, considerations of comity counseled the exercise of discretion to withhold the writ at this early stage. In subsequent decisions, the Court continued to insist that state remedies be exhausted, even when the applicant alleged a lack of jurisdiction in state authorities which, if true, would have enabled the federal court to act on the application immediately. E. g., Ex parte Fonda, 117 U. S. 516; Cook v. Hart, 146 U. S. 183; New York v. Eno, 155 U. S. 89. As stated in Cook v. Hart, 146 U. S., at 195, The party charged waives no defect of jurisdiction by submitting to a trial of his case upon the merits . . . . Should . . . [his] rights be denied, his remedy in the Federal court will remain unimpaired. (Emphasis added.) The question whether the Constitution deprived the State of jurisdiction, in other words, would remain open under traditional doctrine, on collateral as well as direct attack. There can be no doubt of the limited scope of habeas corpus during this formative period, and of the consistent efforts to confine the writ to questions of jurisdiction. But the cardinal point for present purposes is that in no case was it held, or even suggested, that habeas corpus would be available to consider any claims by a prisoner held pursuant to a state court judgment whose validity rested on an adequate nonfederal ground. Indeed, so long as the writ was confined to claims by state prisoners that the State was constitutionally precluded from exercising its jurisdiction in the particular case, it is difficult to conceive of a decision to detain in such cases resting on an adequate state ground. Even when the concept of jurisdiction was expanded, as in Ex parte Siebold, 100 U. S. 371, and other decisions, the matters open on habeas were still limited to those which were believed to have deprived the sentencing court of all competence to act, and which therefore could always be raised on collateral attack. It is for this reason that the Royall line of exhaustion cases, relied on so heavily by the Court, has no real bearing on the problem before us. For those cases dealt only with the discretion of the court to take action which, if the allegations of lack of state jurisdiction were upheld, it would have had power to take either before or after state consideration. The issue here, on the other hand, is one of power, and wholly different considerations are involved. In those few instances during this early period when the Court discussed questions it did not regard as jurisdictional, it occasionally went so far as to suggest that a constitutional claim could not be raised on habeas even if the state decision to detain rested on an inadequate state groundthat the only avenue of relief was direct review. Thus in Andrews v. Swartz, 156 U. S. 272, where the claim made on federal habeas was the systematic exclusion of Negroes from a state jury, the Court held it a sufficient answer to this contention that the state court had jurisdiction both of the offence charged and of the accused. Id., at 276. It continued: Even if it be assumed that the state court improperly denied to the accused . . . the right to show by proof that persons of his race were arbitrarily excluded. . . it would not follow that the court lost jurisdiction of the case within the meaning of the well-established rule that a prisoner under conviction and sentence of another court will not be discharged on habeas corpus unless the court that passed the sentence was so far without jurisdiction that its proceedings must be regarded as void. Ibid. 2. 1915-1953 period. The next stage of development may be described as beginning in 1915 with Frank v. Mangum, 237 U. S. 309, and ending in 1953 with Brown v. Allen, 344 U. S. 443. In Frank, the prisoner had claimed before the state courts that the proceedings in which he had been convicted for murder had been dominated by a mob, and the State Supreme Court, after consideration not only of the record but of extensive affidavits, had concluded that mob domination had not been established. [9] Frank then sought federal habeas, and this Court affirmed the denial of relief. But in doing so the Court recognized that Frank's allegation of mob domination raised a constitutional question which he was entitled to have considered by a competent tribunal uncoerced by popular pressures. Such corrective process had been afforded by the State Supreme Court, however, and since Frank had received notice, and a hearing, or an opportunity to be heard on his constitutional claims (237 U. S., at 326), his detention was not in violation of federal law and habeas corpus would not lie. It is clear that a new dimension was added to habeas corpus in this case, for in addition to questions previously thought of as jurisdictional, the federal courts were now to consider whether the applicant had been given an adequate opportunity to raise his constitutional claims before the state courts. And if no such opportunity had been afforded in the state courts, the federal claim would be heard on its merits. The Court thus rejected the views expressed in Andrews v. Swartz, supra, p. 455, by holding, in effect, that a constitutional claim could be heard on habeas if the State's refusal to give it proper consideration rested on an inadequate state ground. But habeas would not lie to reconsider constitutional questions that had been fairly determined. And a fortiori it would not lie to consider a question when the state court's refusal to do so rested on an adequate and independent state ground. In this connection, it is important to note the section of the opinion relating to Frank's separate constitutional claim that his involuntary absence from the courtroom at the time the verdict was rendered invalidated the conviction. Frank had failed to raise this point in his motion for a new trial; the state court held that it had been waived; and this Court decided that the state rule barring assertion of the point after failure to raise it in a motion for new trial was reasonable and did not violate due process. [10] Clearly, the significance of the Court's ruling was that as to this constitutional claim, whatever its merits if the point had been properly preserved, there was an adequate nonfederal ground for the detention. In no case prior to Brown v. Allen , I submit, was there any substantial modification of the concepts articulated in the Frank decision. In Moore v. Dempsey, 261 U. S. 86, this Court did require a hearing on federal habeas of a claim similar to that in Frank, of mob domination of the trial, even though the state appellate court had purported to pass on the claim, but only by refusing to assume that the trial was an empty ceremony. [11] The decision of this Court is sufficiently ambiguous that it seems to have meant all things to all men. [12] But I suggest that the decision cannot be taken to have overruled Frank; it did not purport to do so, and indeed it was joined by two Justices who had joined in the Frank opinion. Rather, what the Court appears to have held was that the state appellate court's perfunctory treatment of the question of mob domination, amounting to nothing more than reliance on the presumptive validity of the trial, was not in fact acceptable corrective process and federal habeas would therefore lie to consider the merits of the claim. Until today, the Court has consistently so interpreted the opinion, as in Ex parte Hawk, 321 U. S. 114, 118, where Moore was cited as an example of a case in which the remedy afforded by state law proves in practice unavailable or seriously inadequate. See also Jennings v. Illinois, 342 U. S. 104, 111. Certainly, there is no basis in the Moore opinion, whatever it may fairly be taken to mean, for concluding that the Court required consideration on federal habeas of a question which the state court had had an adequate state ground for refusing to consider. The claim of mob domination was considered, although apparently inadequately, by the state court, and it was only on this premise that the claim was required to be heard on habeas. Subsequent decisions involving state prisoners continued to indicate that the controlling question on federal habeasapart from matters going to lack of state jurisdiction in light of federal lawwas whether or not the State had afforded adequate opportunity to raise the federal claim. If not, the federal claim could be considered on its merits. See, e. g., Mooney v. Holohan, 294 U. S. 103; White v. Ragen, 324 U. S. 760; Woods v. Nierstheimer, 328 U. S. 211; cf. Jennings v. Illinois, 342 U. S. 104. [13] A development paralleling that in Frank v. Mangum took place during this period with regard to federal prisoners. The writ remained unavailable to consider questions that were or could have been raised in the original proceedings, or on direct appeal, see Sunal v. Large, 332 U. S. 174, but it was employed to permit consideration of constitutional questions that could not otherwise have been adequately presented to the courts. E. g., Johnson v. Zerbst, 304 U. S. 458; Walker v. Johnston, 312 U. S. 275; Waley v. Johnston, 316 U. S. 101. This limited scope of habeas corpus, and its statutory substitute 28 U. S. C. § 2255, in relation to federal prisoners may have survived Brown v. Allen and may still survive today. See, e. g., Franano v. United States, 303 F. 2d 470, cert. denied, 371 U. S. 865. Compare Jordan v. United States, 352 U. S. 904. To recapitulate, then, prior to Brown v. Allen , habeas corpus would not lie for a prisoner who was in custody pursuant to a state judgment of conviction by a court of competent jurisdiction if he had been given an adequate opportunity to obtain full and fair consideration of his federal claim in the state courts. Clearly, under this approach, a detention was not in violation of federal law if the validity of the state conviction on which that detention was based rested on an adequate nonfederal ground. 3. Post-1953, Brown v. Allen , period. In 1953, this Court rendered its landmark decisions in Brown v. Allen, 344 U. S. 443, and Daniels v. Allen, reported therewith, 344 U. S., at 482-487. [14] Both cases involved applications for federal habeas corpus by prisoners who were awaiting execution pursuant to state convictions. In both cases, the constitutional contentions made were that the trial court had erred in ruling confessions admissible and in overruling motions to quash the indictment on the basis of alleged discrimination in the selection of jurors. In Brown, these contentions had been presented to the highest court of the State, on direct appeal from the conviction, and had been rejected by that court on the merits, State v. Brown, 233 N. C. 202, 63 S. E. 2d 99, after which this Court had denied certiorari, 341 U. S. 943. At this point, the Court held, Brown was entitled to full reconsideration of these constitutional claims, with a hearing if appropriate, in an application to a Federal District Court for habeas corpus. It is manifest that this decision substantially expanded the scope of inquiry on an application for federal habeas corpus. [15] Frank v. Mangum and Moore v. Dempsey had denied that the federal courts in habeas corpus sat to determine whether errors of law, even constitutional law, had been made in the original trial and appellate proceedings. Under the decision in Brown, if a petitioner could show that the validity of a state decision to detain rested on a determination of a constitutional claim, and if he alleged that determination to be erroneous, the federal court had the right and the duty to satisfy itself of the correctness of the state decision. But what if the validity of the state decision to detain rested not on the determination of a federal claim but rather on an adequate nonfederal ground which would have barred direct review by this Court? That was the question in Daniels. The attorney for the petitioners in that case had failed to mail the appeal papers on the last day for filing, and although he delivered them by hand the next day, the State Supreme Court refused to entertain the appeal, ruling that it had not been filed on time. This ruling, this Court held, barred federal habeas corpus consideration of the claims that the state appellate court had refused to consider. Language in Mr. Justice Reed's opinion for the Court appeared to support the result alternatively in terms of waiver, [16] failure to exhaust state remedies, [17] and the existence of an adequate state ground. [18] But while the explanation may have been ambiguous, the result was clear: habeas corpus would not lie for a prisoner who was detained pursuant to a state judgment which, in the view of the majority in Daniels, rested on a reasonable application of the State's own procedural requirements. Moreover, the issue was plainly viewed as one of authority, not of discretion. 344 U. S., at 485. I do not pause to reconsider here the question whether the state ground in Daniels was an adequate one; persuasive arguments can be made that it was not. The important point for present purposes is that the approach in Daniels was wholly consistent with established principles in the field of habeas corpus jurisdiction. The problem, however, had been brought into sharper focus by the result in Brown. Once it is made clear that the questions open on federal habeas extend to such matters as the admissibility of confessions, or of other evidence, the possibility that inquiry may be precluded by the existence of a state ground adequate to support the judgment is substantially increased. Issues similar to those in Daniels next came before the Court in Irvin v. Dowd, 359 U. S. 394. In that case, the state court's decision affirming Irvin's conviction for murder was ambiguous and it could have been interpreted to rest on a state ground even though Irvin's federal constitutional claims were considered. Irvin v. State, 236 Ind. 384, 139 N. E. 2d 898; see also the dissenting opinion of this writer in Irvin v. Dowd, supra, 412. This Court, in reversing a dismissal of an application for federal habeas corpus, concluded that the state court decision had rested on determination of Irvin's federal claims, and held that those claims could therefore be considered on federal habeas. The majority appeared to approach the problem as one of exhaustion, [19] but the basic determination was that the state court judgment, pursuant to which Irvin was detained, did not rest on an application of the State's procedural rules. This brings us to the present case. There can, I think, be no doubt that today's holdingthat federal habeas will lie despite the existence of an adequate and independent nonfederal ground for the judgment pursuant to which the applicant is detainedis wholly unprecedented. Indeed, it constitutes a direct rejection of authority that is squarely to the contrary. That the result now reached is a novel one does not, of course, mean that it is necessarily incorrect or unwise. But a decision which finds virtually no support in more than a century of this Court's experience should certainly be subject to the most careful scrutiny.