Written Component
Article 1, Section 9, Clause 2 of the Constitution, otherwise known as the Suspension Clause, grants prisoners the right to habeas corpus. This concept originated as an English law that stated that an imprisoned person has the right to challenge the legality of their sentencing. If a court finds that the reasons for their punishment were unlawful, the prisoner must then be released from their detainment. Originally, this was created as a way to protect a prisoner’s rights and freedom, as monarchs were known to send people to jail without a trial. However, it was largely ignored in England until Parliament passed the Habeas Corpus Act of 1679. Thus, the Framers of the constitution were likely trying to protect those who were unjustly sent to prison, and limit the government’s infringement on a citizen’s right to due process.
This clause is commonly interpreted as granting U.S. citizens detained by America and non-citizens detained on U.S. soil the writ of habeas corpus, except in cases of rebellion or domestic invasion, where granting this right to prisoners could be detrimental to public safety and security. However, one major disagreement among Constitution scholars is the scope of whom this clause applies to. For most of its history, it has not applied to non-citizens imprisoned outside of the country, as it was not explicitly stated in the text, as well as there being no precedent for courts having this jurisdiction. A key example of this is Johnson v. Eisentrager (1950), in which the Supreme Court ruled that 21 german citizens detained by the US Army in Germany did not have the right to challenge the legality of their sentence. Despite this, it was ruled in Boumediene v. Bush (2008) that a group of soldiers held in Guantanamo Bay had the ability to petition for a writ of Habeus Corpus. As such, this newly established precedent granted courts the ability to extend the writ of Habeus Corpus to non-citizens detained outside America if the courts deem it reasonable.
The origins of this clause are rooted in the authoritarian power of the English monarchy, in which it was fully within a king or queen’s power to send someone to jail without the benefit of a trial. In putting a check on the monarch’s power, Parliament asserts its political power over the “Divine Right of Kings”; in short, the monarchy of England justified its existence and position by claiming to be divinely chosen. This proved ineffective, as during the English Civil Wars (1642-1652), the monarchy was overthrown and the King was executed. Though it was eventually reinstated, the fact that Parliament could institute restrictions on the supposedly boundless power of the King was a reflection of the developing Enlightenment ideals of the time. This included a shift toward logic and de-centralized power and away from authoritarianism, ideals which both Parliament and the framers of the Constitution seeked to embody in their governments.