Court Opinion

ID: 9422099
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-02 23:01:17.821222+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:22:34.371045
License: Public Domain

Mr. Chief Justice Warren,
with whom Mr. Justice Black joins,
dissenting.
I cannot agree with the decision of the Court. We have said that “apart from specific exceptions created by Congress the jurisdiction of the district courts is territorial,” Ahrens v. Clark, 335 U. S. 188, 190, and that as a general rule “a United States district court cannot issue process beyond the limits of the district.” Georgia v. Pennsylvania R. Co., 324 U. S. 439, 467-468. These principles were applied to writs of habeas corpus ad subjiciendum in Ahrens v. Clark, supra, where we held that the words “within their respective jurisdictions” as *623used in 28 U. S. C. § 2241 created a territorial limitation upon the habeas corpus jurisdiction of federal judges and courts. Today we are departing from Ahrens and the principles on which our decision in that case rested, for the Court holds that the restrictive language of § 2241 is inapplicable to writs of habeas corpus ad prosequendum. I can see no justification for these variant interpretations of the same language in the same statute.
We are not helped by the tortured history of § 2241 and its antecedents, since the legislative material relied on by the Court is, to say the least, ambiguous,1 and could be used to support inferences diametrically opposed to those drawn by the Court. For example, the fact that the first statutory reference to the writ of habeas corpus ad prosequendum does not appear until the enactment of § 2241 reasonably implies that none of the prior statutory history is relevant insofar as that writ is concerned, and that in codifying a unified habeas corpus statute in 1948, Congress intended the restrictive language of the first paragraph of § 2241 to apply to all of the writs thereafter enumerated, among which are both the writ ad subjicien-dum and the writ ad prosequendum.
Although the specific question presented by this case is a matter of first impression for us, the Court concludes that, since three, and perhaps four, Circuit Courts of Appeals have upheld the issuance of extraterritorial writs ad prosequendum, its interpretation of the statute has *624become an “accepted” one. But at the same time, the Court recognizes that there are other cases in which lower courts have “relied upon a contrary construction of § 2241.” In each of these cases, the District Court overruled a defendant’s request for a speedy trial by holding that since its orders could not “run beyond its territorial jurisdiction,” it had no power to issue a writ ad prose-quendum to bring to trial a defendant who was incarcerated outside of its district. In the Matter of Van Collins, 160 F. Supp. 165, 167 (D. C. Me.); Phillips v. Hiatt, 83 F. Supp. 935, 938 (D. C. Del.). Cf. Edgerly v. Kennelly, 215 F. 2d 420 (C. A. 7th Cir.); Yodock v. United States, 196 F. 2d 1018 (C. A. 3d Cir.). In view of these cases, it can hardly be said that the Court’s interpretation has become a generally “accepted” one.
The court below justified the District Court’s action not upon § 2241, but rather upon the all writs statute, 28 U. S. C. § 1651. This Court refrains from relying on that section, as, indeed, it should, since the general provisions of § 1651 should not be read as expanding the jurisdictional limitations created by Congress with regard to a specific writ.2 See Price v. Johnston, 334 U. S. 266, 279; Adams v. McCann, 317 U. S. 269, 272-273.
I do not say that the federal courts should not have the power to issue extraterritorial writs ad prosequendum. There are persuasive reasons for conferring such authority upon the courts, and Congress is perfectly free to do so. However, if the jurisdiction of the federal courts is to be expanded, and if the traditional territorial limitation *625is to be abandoned, then Congress should specifically so indicate.3 But Congress has not done so, and until it does, we should not tamper with the present statutory scheme, except by following the customary procedure of adopting a special rule and submitting it to Congress for approval. Cf. Rules 4 (c)(2), 17 (e)(1), Fed. Rules Crim. Proc.
Finally, I must add a few words concerning the Court’s dictum that, regardless of the interpretation placed upon § 2241, the California District Court had jurisdiction to issue the writ because the petitioner had previously appeared in that court, had entered a plea of not guilty, and had been permitted to return to New York to obtain counsel on condition that he would come back to California for trial. It is said that by virtue of this appearance, the District Court had “fastened ... a leash” on the petitioner, and that this “leash” supported the issuance of the.writ ad prosequendum. However, the Court ignores the fact that petitioner’s initial appearance in California was also obtained by means of a writ of habeas *626corpus ad prosequendum addressed to the authorities of the New York City Prison. It ill behooves the Court to attempt to justify the issuance of an unauthorized writ of habeas corpus by relying upon jurisdiction that was acquired by an equally unauthorized writ.4 This theory introduces an unwise and judicially engrafted bootstrap exception to § 2241. In my opinion, the “leash” relied upon by the Court is in reality no more than a rope of sand.

 Chief Justice Taft, speaking for the Court in Ponzi v. Fessenden, 258 U. S. 254, construed § 753 of the Revised Statutes, one of the enactments relied upon by the Court, as imposing a territorial limitation upon the District Court's power to issue a writ of habeas corpus ad prosequendum. He said:
"Under statutes permitting it, he [the prisoner] might have been taken under the writ of habeas corpus to give evidence in a federal court, or to be tried there if in the same district, § 753, Rev. Stats. . . .” Id., at 261. (Emphasis added.)

 The lower court’s reliance upon United States v. Hayman, 342 U. S. 205, is misplaced. There the Court upheld the issuance of an extraterritorial writ in the nature of habeas corpus, saying that the authority to issue the writ under § 1651 was necessarily inferred from the provisions of 28 U. S. C. § 2255. This case does not involve § 2255; nor does it involve any other statute which could be read as conferring extraterritorial authority upon the federal courts.

 In those few instances when Congress intended to extend the territorial jurisdiction of the federal courts, it has specifically and unambiguously indicated that intent. See Rules 4 (c) (2) and 17 (e) (1), Fed. Rules Crim. Proc., which read:
“Rule 4. Warrant or Summons Upon Complaint.
“(c) Execution or Service; and Return.
“(2) Territorial Limits. The warrant may be executed or the summons may be served at any place within the jurisdiction of the United States.”
“Rule 17. Subpoena.
“(e) Place of Service.
“(1) In United States. A subpoena requiring the attendance of a witness at a hearing or trial may be served at any place within the United States.”

 The Court's reliance upon Ex parte Endo, 323 U. S. 283, is misplaced, because the District Court's initial jurisdiction in that case was unquestionably proper in all respects.