 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.
|
| Homestead Act (1862) |
|
The Homestead Act allowed any citizen or intended citizen to claim and settle 160 acres of federal land. In exchange for a filing fee and the completion of five years of continuous residence and cultivation of the land, settlers would receive ownership of the land. This act incited further westward expansion and dispossession of Native lands. Union Army scout Daniel Freeman filed the first land claim for a homestead in Gage County, Nebraska Territory.
|
| I Did Not Want to Go: An Enslaved Woman's Leap into the Capital's Conscience (2015) |
|
This essay details the ordeal of Anna, or Ann Williams, a victim of human trafficking in antebellum Washington, D.C. The essay also offers an analysis of the evolution of her narrative during the nineteenth century.
|
| Immigration Act of 1891 |
|
The Immigration Act of 1891 gave the Federal Government direct control over assessing and processing immigrants into the United States. It prohibited polygamists, people convicted of "crimes of moral turpitude," and people with certain diseases from entering the U.S. The act also created the Office of the Superintendent of Immigration within the Treasury Department to regulate immigration.
|
| Immigration Act of 1917 |
|
The 1917 Immigration Act was a federal law that created the Asiatic barred zone, prohibiting immigration from Asian nations.
|
| In re Halladjian et al. (1909) |
|
In this case, a Massachusetts circuit court ruled that people from West Asia were so intermixed with Europeans that the Armenian plaintiffs should be considered white and admitted to U.S. citizenship.
|
| In the case of E. M. Hewlett (1886) |
|
In 1886, Felix Quander entered into a legal battle with Emanuel Molyneaux Hewlett, a prominent Black attorney in Washington, D.C., that was covered by several of the area's newspapers. Hewlett attempted to collect three cows and a horse from Quander as payment for legal fees, which Quander contested. After two trials, Hewlett was found not guilty of larceny. Two years later, a second dispute occurred between the two men when Quander located the previously taken horse. Hewlett, Quander, and two of Quander's sons were charged with disorderly conduct and fined $5 after an incident in front of the Police Court that was covered by the Evening Star.
|
| 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 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 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.
|
| In the Matter of the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus for the Person of Nan Oy (1888) |
|
The habeas corpus petition of Nan Oy shows legal challenges related to carceral confinement and immigration in the nineteenth century. In this case, Nan Oy was arrested crossing the U.S. border to be with her husband, a U.S. citizen. She was ultimately deported.
|
| In the Matter of the Petition of Elihu Schooner for a Writ of Habeas Corpus (1858) |
|
When Elihu Schooner was arrested as a fugitive from slavery, he petitioned for a writ of habeas corpus. Born free in Ohio, upon hearing the facts of the case, Schooner was released by the court.
|
| In the Matter of the Petition of Ham Hung Wah by Tom Sing for Writ of Habeas Corpus (1911) |
|
The habeas corpus petition of Ham Hung Wah shows legal challenges related to immigration in the early twentieth century. In this case, the twelve-year-old native-born son of Chinese immigrant parents was arrested and detained as "an alien Chinese person seeking unlawfully to land in the United States" after returning to America from China where he had been visiting his grandparents. To support his son's petition, Ham Hung Wah's father also submitted an affidavit from prominent white members of society testifying to the family's trustworthiness, membership in the Presbyterian Church, and adoption of the "habits of western civilization." The petition was eventually dismissed at the request of Wah's attorney. His fate is unknown.
|
| In the Matter of the Petition of John Jones, alias John Cook, for a Writ of Habeas Corpus (1857) |
|
When John Jones was arrested as a fugitive from slavery, he petitioned for a writ of habeas corpus. Born free in Pennsylvania, upon hearing the facts of the case, Jones was released by the court.
|
| In the Matter of the Petition of Juan Rey Abeita for a Writ of Habeas Corpus (1892) |
|
In this case, Juan Rey Abeita petitioned on behalf of his three sons against the superintendent of the Government Indian School in Albuquerque, who refused to allow his sons to return home. The writ was granted, but Abeita later withdrew the petition. Records in the Office of Indian Affairs indicate that the agency pressured the superintendent into releasing the children to avoid an unfavorable legal ruling.
|
| In the Matter of the Petition of William M. Parkinson for a Writ of Habeas Corpus (1852) |
|
The habeas corpus petition of William M. Parkinson shows legal challenges related to child custody in the nineteenth century. In this case, a father used habeas corpus in an attempt to retrieve his nine-year-old son from his ex-wife and her new husband. The child's fate is unknown.
|