A “Second <em>Magna Carta</em>”: The English Habeas Corpus Act and the Statutory Origins of the Habeas Privilege

Tyler, Amanda L

Journal: Notre Dame Law Review

Volume: 91

First Page: 1949

Year: 2016

Bluebook Citation: 91 NOTRE DAME L. REV. 1949 (2016)

Author: Amanda L. Tyler: all 6 publications


Citation analytics

How this journal article sits in the citation network, derived from CiteLaw's graph of published opinions.

Cited
3
Citing decisions
2
Courts citing

Citations by decade

2
1
2010s2020s

Courts citing this journal article

5th Cir.2
9th Cir.1
Most recently cited by3
  • 2020Roberto Beras v. Calvin Johnson, Warden 5th Cir.
  • 2019Thuraissigiam v. U.S. Dep't of Homeland Sec. 9th Cir.
  • 2017Jauch v. Choctaw County 5th Cir.

Counts reflect decisions in the CiteLaw corpus and may lag very recent opinions.


Abstract

In my own scholarship, Fallon and Meltzer’s work on habeas models prompted me to dig deeper into the historical backdrop that informed ratification of the Suspension Clause and think harder about the relevance of that history for questions of constitutional interpretation. This, in turn, has spurred work that has occupied me for many years since. In the spirit of engaging with my federal courts professor one more time, this Article tells the story of the statutory origins of the habeas privilege—what Blackstone called a “second magna carta”—and argues that any explication of the constitutional privilege and discussion of how courts should address modern Suspension Clause questions should account for the critical role that the English Habeas Corpus Act played in the development of Anglo-American habeas jurisprudence.

Chat with this journal article using AI

Ask CiteLaw's AI Navigator anything about this journal article, verify citations, and research related authorities. Sign up for CiteLaw free today to get started.