Legal Traditions: Part II – Pre-Law Advising Services Blog

As we discussed in Legal Traditions: Part I, many legal traditions can be mysteries to those outside of the legal profession. The American legal system is rooted in common law, which thrives on tradition, utilizing concepts created hundreds of years ago that continue to serve as foundations for the modern system today. While many of these legal traditions are long-standing, they are also often unfamiliar, and there is only so much that courtroom dramas can teach about the actual law! In two parts, we have chosen four legal “traditions” to highlight because of their frequent use in courtrooms and common reference in our news and media. Continue reading below to learn more about the final two in this series: habeas corpus and stare decisis.

Habeas Corpus

With Contributing Authors:

Harry Kennedy, Class of 2027 & Julia Trevino, Class of 2027

What is Habeas Corpus?

The Latin term habeas corpus directly translates to “you shall have the body,” and is a fundamental legal principle that ensures citizens’ protection from unlawful imprisonment. In a practical sense, this term refers to the procedural court order that brings the detained individual before a judge to verify that the detention is lawful and legitimate. Article 1, Section 9, Clause 2 of the Constitution guarantees all citizens the right to the writ of habeas corpus and requires the government to justify its actions in imprisoning individuals, determining if such detainment is lawful.

Brief History:

The concept of habeas corpus can be traced back to the Magna Carta in 1215 and can be found in judicial systems across the globe. As with many concepts in the American legal process, the framers borrowed it from English common law. It was originally created to guarantee that the king could not take into custody, or as we might say today, “disappear”, citizens without due process. This tenet provided subjects a recourse if they were illegally imprisoned by the crown, rights not previously experienced. This concept was incorporated into the U.S. Constitution by the framers and further defined through the Judiciary Act of 1789, the Habeas Corpus Act of 1867, modern legislation, and significant Supreme Court cases throughout our U.S. legal history, which have offered further definition to this critical legal tenet.

One of the most famous historical instances involving habeas corpus occurred during the American Civil War. In 1861, President Lincoln suspended the writ in an attempt to suppress dissent from Confederate sympathizers and ensure public safety amid rebellion, particularly in Maryland. Through suspension, Lincoln blocked those detained and suspected of aiding the Confederacy and anti-war protestors from being brought before the court. This action led to one of the most significant Supreme Court cases involving habeas corpus…

“Why are we proud? We are proud, first of all, because from the beginning of this Nation, a man can walk upright, no matter who he is, or who she is. He can walk upright and meet his friend—or his enemy; and he does not fear that because that enemy may be in a position of great power that he can be suddenly thrown in jail to rot there without charges and with no recourse to justice. We have the habeas corpus act, and we respect it.”

Dwight D. Eisenhower

Landmark Cases:

Lincoln’s actions during the Civil War ultimately led to the landmark Supreme Court case of Ex Parte Merryman (1861). Chief Justice Roger B. Taney ruled that Lincoln’s suspension of habeas corpus was unconstitutional. His reasoning lay grounded in the fact that only Congress has the sole power to suspend habeas corpus. This case helped to affirm judicial power, reinforce the separation of powers, and serve as a warning against executive overreach during national emergencies.

A more modern case involving habeas corpus is Boumediene v. Bush (2008). The Supreme Court held that detainees at the American military base in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba still have the right to seek a writ of habeas corpus. The right could not be deprived even if the detainee has been marked as an enemy combatant. Despite being on Cuban soil, the Court decided that the United States still had sovereignty over the base and American law applies to all at the base.

Conclusion:

This constitutional right serves to protect the personal liberty of citizens by guarding against the unconstitutional abuse of power by the state or federal government, playing a significant role in upholding the rule of law. Though its origins date back centuries, the writ is still highly relevant, with the Supreme Court continuing to hear cases of illegal detainment and writs of habeas corpus to this day.

Sources & Additional Resources

Habeas corpus | United States Courts

Habeas Corpus – Definition, Examples, Cases, Processes

Federal Habeas Corpus: A Legal Overview | Congress.gov | Library of Congress

Habeas Corpus, Explained | Brennan Center for Justice

Ex Parte Merryman

Ex Parte Merryman | Teaching American History

National Humanities Center | Ex Parte Merryman

Boumediene v. Bush | LII

https://www.gilderlehrman.org/history-resources/spotlight-primary-source/proclamation-suspension-habeas-corpus-1862

Stare Decisis

With Contributing author Elizabeth King, Class of 2026

What is Stare Decisis?

Stare decisis is a Latin term meaning “to stand by things decided.” It is a legal principle that guides courts to follow earlier judicial decisions when the same points arise again in litigation. This doctrine fosters consistency, predictability, and stability in the law by requiring judges to respect prior rulings made by higher courts or within their own jurisdiction. Essentially, it defines the concept of precedent, meaning that similar cases should be treated alike, helping maintain fairness and continuity in the judicial system.

A Brief History:

The concept of stare decisis has roots in English common law, as most of the American legal system does, where judges relied on previous decisions to ensure fairness and uniformity in court rulings. When the U.S. legal system was established, it adopted this principle as a core part of judicial reasoning. Over time, stare decisis has evolved to balance respect for precedent with the need to adapt to changing societal values and interpretations of the Constitution.

Landmark Cases:

Throughout U.S. history, some cases have followed stare decisis while others have chosen to overturn precedent, reflecting the ongoing tension between stability and change in the law. Planned Parenthood v. Casey (1992) reaffirmed Roe v. Wade (1973), showing respect for precedent and emphasizing the importance of maintaining consistency in constitutional interpretation through the doctrine of stare decisis. Similarly, Dickerson v. United States (2000) upheld Miranda v. Arizona (1966), confirming that the Miranda rule had become a vital part of legal procedure. However, other cases, like Brown v. Board of Education (1954) overturning Plessy v. Ferguson (1896), and Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization (2022) overturning Roe v. Wade (1973), show that the Court sometimes overturns precedent when it believes earlier decisions were wrongly decided or no longer reflect modern values. Together, these cases reveal that stare decisis is not an absolute rule but a guiding doctrine that must balance consistency with the need for justice and change.

"For over a century it has been the settled doctrine of the Supreme Court that the principle of stare decisis has only limited application in constitutional cases. It might be thought that if any law is to be stabilized by a court decision it logically should be the most fundamental of all law — that of the Constitution. But the years brought about a doctrine that such decisions must be tentative and subject to judicial cancellation if experience fails to verify them. The result is that constitutional precedents are accepted only at their current valuation and have a mortality rate almost as high as their authors."

Robert H. Jackson
Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States

Conclusion:

Stare decisis is relevant today because it protects the integrity of the legal system by promoting consistency and public trust. Consistency matters in the justice system because it helps attorneys and clients assess the strength of their positions and predict the likely outcome of their cases. Public trust is also essential because when courts follow established precedent, people can predict that similar cases will be treated alike, and judges are not acting arbitrarily. This helps people trust that they will be judged according to consistent legal principles rather than bias or a judge’s personal preferences.

While some scholars assert that some cases should/have been considered “supreme” or “super” precedent – not subject to review, the Supreme Court has shown its willingness to regularly revisit established precedent, allowing the law to evolve when old precedents no longer serve society. In modern times, the doctrine has become especially relevant in cases such as Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization (2022) and Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard (2023), where the Supreme Court revisited long-standing precedents on abortion and affirmative action. These recent cases highlight how stare decisis remains central to debates about whether the Court should prioritize legal stability or respond to shifting interpretations of justice and constitutional rights. It remains an important principle in ensuring that the law is both stable and capable of change when necessary.