 Albert Wiley v. Moses Keokuk (1869) |
|
In this case, Moses Keokuk, a chief of the Sac and Fox Nation, successfully used habeas corpus to free himself from the arrest and detention of a U.S. Indian Agent after he left the Sac and Fox reservation without authorization. When a lower court ordered his release, the agent appealed the case to the Kansas Supreme Court. The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the lower court, acknowledging the mobility and autonomy of Native Americans.
|
| An Act Further to Protect Personal Liberty (1843) |
|
This Massachusetts personal liberty law aimed to counteract the Fugitive Slave Act of 1793 by forbidding state-level judges and law enforcement officers from arresting or detaining any person "for the reason that he is claimed as a fugitive slave."
|
| An Act to enable persons held in slavery, to sue for their freedom (1807) |
|
This territorial statute presented an opportunity for enslaved people to sue for their freedom in Louisiana Territory courts. It also specified how petitioners were to be treated by defendants while the freedom suit was being heard.
|
| An Act to Prevent Kidnapping (1820) |
|
This act is Pennsylvania's first personal liberty law. It was written to counteract the Fugitive Slave Act of 1793 and preserve the ability of free Black people to live in Pennsylvania. The act made kidnapping any Black person a felony punishable by large fines and lengthy imprisonment. It also fined any state official that took cognizance of the case of "any fugitive from labor."
|
| Arch v. Barnabas Harris (1818) |
|
This freedom suit illustrates how enslaved people presented a fundamental issue in the legal system. The central question in Arch's case was a question between personal liberty, enshrined in the Declaration of Independence, versus a right to personal property, also enshrined in the Declaration.
|
| Discussions of Habeas Corpus in the Annual Reports of the Commissioner of Indian Affairs (1845-1905) |
|
In this collection of reports to the Commissioner of Indian Affairs, Indian agents wrote of their concerns regarding the use of habeas in and beyond Indian Country. While the majority of lower court records are unpublished and unindexed, these reports compiling the complaints and summaries of agents accounting for every reservation within the U.S. provides insight into the presence of Indigenous litigants and defendants in the legal system.
|
| Fugitive Slave Act of 1850 |
|
The Fugitive Slave Act of 1850 was a part of the Compromise of 1850. The act addressed weaknesses in previous fugitive slave acts by penalizing officials who did not aid in returning escaped slaves. The Fugitive Slave Act of 1850 rendered Habeas Corpus irrelevant.
|
| Gonzales v. Williams (1903) |
|
Gonzales v. Williams is one of a series of cases decided by the Supreme Court addressing the status of U.S. territories known as the Insular Cases. This case determined that while people from Puerto Rico were not citizens of the United States, they were also not "aliens." This case labelled those in unincorporated territories as U.S, nationals instead of citizens.
|
| Habeas Corpus Act of 1842 |
|
The Habeas Corpus Act of 1842 acknowledged the right of foreign born individuals to use habeas corpus, giving immigrants the ability to challenge their deportation.
|
| Habeas Corpus Act of 1867 |
|
The Habeas Corpus Act of 1867 expanded the authority of federal courts to issue writs of habeas corpus. It was passed largely in response to the resistance to civil rights for Black Americans after the Civil War, and allowed suits to be removed from state courts to lower federal courts for trial, as well as allowed for petitions for a writ of habeas corpus from federal courts if rights under the U.S. Constitution or any law or treaty were being violated.
|
| Hawaii v. Mankichi (1903) |
|
Hawaii v. Mankichi is one of a series of cases decided by the Supreme Court addressing the status of U.S. territories known as the Insular Cases. This case considered the extent to which the Constitution should apply to Hawaii and how the new territory's previous legal codes could be folded into the laws of the Territory of Hawaii.
|
| In the Matter of Elizabeth Denison, James Denison, Scipio Denison, and Peter Denison, Jr. (1807) |
|
Elizabeth, James, Scipio, and Peter Denison Jr. filed a writ of habeas corpus, seeking their freedom from Catherine Tucker based on the Northwest Ordinance of 1787 which prohibited slavery in the Northwest Territory. Their enslaver claimed ownership based on Jay's Treaty, which allowed settlers of this territory to hold property of any kind, including enslaved people. While the courts eventually decided in favor of Tucker, the Denisons escaped into Canada, taking advantage of a doctrine that there was no obligation to give up fugitives from a foreign jurisdiction. They eventually returned to Michigan Territory and lived as freedmen.
|
| In the Matter of Hannah and Biddy and their children on Petition for Habeas Corpus (1856) |
|
In the decision in this case, a California judge ruled that Biddy Mason and her three children, as well as a woman named Hannah and her nine children and grandchildren, were "free forever" after their enslaver brought them into the free state of California to reside.
|
| In the Matter of Julia alias Mary Ann on Habeas Corpus (1836) |
|
In 1834, Julia successfully filed a freedom suit in St. Louis. Two years later, her mother, having secured her own freedom, petitioned for a writ of habeas corpus on behalf of Julia, claiming that she was still being held by her former enslavers. When Julia was presented to the court, the writ was discharged, the court "being satisfied that she is contented with her situation, and does not wish to exchange it."
|
| In the Matter of Ralph on Habeas Corpus (1839) |
|
Ralph was an enslaved Black man who made an agreement with his Missouri enslaver to purchase his freedom. In order to earn the sum, Ralph was permitted to move to Dubuque in order to work in the lead mines. When he failed to pay the money after several years, his enslaver came to Dubuque with the intention of taking Ralph back to Missouri. Ralph appeared before the Court on a writ of habeas corpus, where the Court found that as slavery was prohibited in Iowa Territory, he was entitled to his freedom. This case was the first case heard by the Supreme Court of Iowa.
|
| In the Matter of the Application for Writ of Habeas Corpus by Elizabeth Bird (1867) |
|
The habeas corpus petition of Elizabeth Bird shows legal challenges related to child custody in the nineteenth century. In this case, Bird argued that she was made the legal guardian of Missouri Bird, a ten year old child, by the child's mother, and claimed that Missouri was being confined to the house of Frances Pattmore. Pattmore responded that Missouri's presence in her house was of her own free will. The court awarded custody of Missouri to Pattmore.
|
| In the Matter of the Application of Agnes Smith for a Writ of Habeas Corpus (1921) |
|
The habeas corpus petition of Agnes Smith shows legal challenges on the part of women in the early twentieth century from carceral confinement. After she was committed to an institute for "feeble-minded youth," Agnes' parents attempted to regain custody of her. The court denied the writ, claiming that Agnes was a "fit and proper subject" for the institution.
|
| In the Matter of the Application of Alice McKay for a Writ of Habeas Corpus for the Body of Mary McKay (1891) |
|
The habeas corpus petition of Alice McKay shows legal challenges related to child custody in the nineteenth century. In this case, a mother petitioned for a writ of habeas corpus after placing one of her children with a charitable organization to receive medical care and custody of the child was eventually given to a married couple. Before a court order was made in the case, the mother abducted the child from the married couple's home. Custody of the child was awarded by the court to the married couple.
|
| In the Matter of the Application of Andrew J. Sawyer for Writ of Habeas Corpus for Chin Tu Ling, Lee Shun, and Look Fung (1898) |
|
In this case, three Chinese girls between the ages of 15 and 18 used habeas corpus to free themselves from the custody of the Mee Lee Wah Village Company responsible for developing the Chinese Village for the Trans-Mississippi and International Exposition in Omaha. The judge found that the girls were being kept for "immoral purposes" and were remanded to the custody of a missionary doctor who would make arrangements for their return to China. After this judgment, the company filed their own petition for a writ of habeas corpus in an attempt to re-establish custody of the girls, who, they argued, owed a contractual obligation to the corporation until the close of the exposition. In this second case, the judge released the girls into the custody of the Mee Lee Wah Village Company so that they could fulfill their contracts.
|
| In the Matter of the Application of Claus Hubbard for a Writ of Habeas Corpus (1898) |
|
In this case, a prominent member of Omaha's 3rd Ward was arrested for vagrancy. To challenge his wrongful arrest, Claus Hubbard petitioned for habeas corpus, arguing that he was targeted by police because of his activism in the community. Hubbard frequently provided legal advisement and bail to African Americans facing indiscriminate arrests. The court agreed, ordering his release and also admonishing the police for violating the constitutional liberties of citizens.
|
| In the Matter of the Application of Gussie Burns for Writ of Habeas Corpus (1920) |
|
In this case, Gussie Burns was arrested for vagrancy, found guilty, and sentenced to 30 days in the county jail. After her sentencing, she was subjected to a physical examination and reportedly found to have venereal disease. As a result, she was sent to the Omaha Women's Detention Home for treatment. After being confined to the home for four months, Gussie petitioned for a writ of habeas corpus, arguing that her 30 day sentence had long since passed, the disease she was alleged to have did not exist, and that officials would not release her until she consented to "an operation for the removal of certain tubes." A writ was granted, though the outcome of her case is unknown. Cases like Gussie's illustrate the legal sophistication of women in the face of attempts to subordinate them during the Progressive Era.
|
| In the Matter of the Application of Jacob West for a Writ of Habeas Corpus (1843) |
|
In this case, Jacob West, a white man who had resided within the Cherokee Nation for thirty years, was charged with the murder of a Cherokee man in a tribal court. West petitioned for a writ of habeas corpus in federal court, claiming immunity from the tribal courts as a white man. The writ was denied by the district court judge, who argued that given West's term of residence within the tribe, he was subject to their jurisdiction: "He has made himself one of them and is to be regarded as an Indian." West was executed by the tribal court.
|
| In the Matter of the Application of Mary Marshall, mother of William Marshall an Infant, for a Writ of Habeas Corpus (1886) |
|
The habeas corpus petition of Mary Marshall shows legal challenges related to carceral confinement and child custody in the nineteenth century. After being abandoned by her husband, a mother and her three children were forced to enter a charitable home. When one child became ill, he was given to the custody of a physician. The court ruled that custody of the child was lawful, but that in six months time, the mother could petition to amend or modify the judge's order.
|
| In the Matter of the Application of Standing Bear et al. for a Writ of Habeas Corpus (1879) |
|
Standing Bear's writ of habeas corpus showed implications for citizenship, land dispossession, and human rights.
|
| In the Matter of the Application of Yu Gum and Yu Hung for a Writ of Habeas Corpus (1886) |
|
The habeas corpus petitions of Yu Gum and Yu Hung show legal challenges related to carceral confinement and immigration in the nineteenth century. In this case, two sisters were detained in Seattle for being in the U.S. unlawfully. When they were set to be deported to British Columbia, the girls petitioned for a writ of habeas corpus. The outcome of their case is unknown.
|