Ex Parte Yerger

1868

Venue: SCOTUS
Facts: Who knows? Yerger is in custody, it would seem.
Posture: Not stated; some appealing, presumably.
Issue: Two issues:
  1. Does the court have habeas jurisdiction under the Judiciary Act of 1789?
  2. Was that jurisdiction taken away by the 1868 McCardle act?
Holding: Yes, and no. The court has jurisdiction to issue the writ.
Rule: Four basic propositions:
  1. Conress can't extend the court's original jurisdiction beyond what's in the Constitution.
  2. SCOTUS has appellate jurisdiction over all other cases within the US judicial power.
  3. Congress can make exceptions to the appellate jurisdiction.
  4. Congress has expressly provided for habeas and mandamus writs.
Reasoning: The terms of the Suspension Clause imply judicial action. According to Marbury, the mandamus power was an appellate power, to be used when revising judicial decisions. Later cases have applied this logic to habeas.

This appeal is from a court where we'd normally have appellate jurisdiction. There's no support for the notion that habeas power doesn't extend to military courts (i.e., is confined only to civil courts).

One of the big ideas of the constitution is that citizens be protected from unlawful imprisonment. There's no express witholding of jurisdiction for this type of case, so we have the power to issue the writ.

There's no reason for us to think that the 1868 act intended effects beyond revocation of the 1867 act. That act repealed a grant of additional jurisdiction; there's no reason to think that it meant to go beyond that.
Dicta: If we held otherwise, we'd essentially be holding that ALL habeas jurisdiction is taken away, and that's contrary to fundamental principles in the law and our history.