Habeas Corpus and the Limits of Liberty: A Framework for Analyzing Its Application to Citizens, Immigrants, and Detainees in U.S. Court

Yıl 2026, Cilt: 5 Sayı: 1, 1 - 19, 29.01.2026

Soner Akın

Öz

Abstract

This study aims to systematically analyze the historical evolution of the Habeas Corpus institution in the United States and its application to different groups. The article examines the functionality of this ancient legal instrument, which protects individual liberty against arbitrary state actions, through three main categories: citizens, immigrants, and foreign combatants detained outside U.S. territory. Progressing through landmark Supreme Court decisions such as Ex parte Milligan (1866), Zadvydas v. Davis (2001), Jennings v. Rodriguez (2018), Rasul v. Bush (2004), and Boumediene v. Bush (2008), the study demonstrates how Habeas Corpus functioned in various crisis contexts, including the Civil War, immigrant detention, and global counterterrorism. The analysis shows that this right plays a central role in delineating the limits of state power and serving as the ultimate guarantor of individual freedom, transcending geographic boundaries and legal statuses. Within this framework, the study argues that Habeas Corpus constitutes a cornerstone of the ongoing struggle between power and liberty in U.S. constitutional democracy.

Keywords: Habeas Corpus, U.S. Constitutional Law, Individual Liberties, Immigrant Rights, Counterterrorism

Anahtar Kelimeler

Habeas Corpus , U.S. Constitutional Law , Individual Liberties , Immigrant Rights , Counterterrorism

Habeas Corpus ve Özgürlüğün Sınırları: ABD Mahkemelerinde Vatandaşlara, Göçmenlere ve Tutuklulara Uygulanmasını Analiz Etmek için Bir Çerçeve

Öz

Öz

Bu çalışma, Amerika Birleşik Devletleri'ndeki Habeas Corpus kurumunun tarihsel evrimini ve farklı gruplara uygulanışını sistematik bir çerçevede analiz etmeyi amaçlamaktadır. Makale, bireyin özgürlüğünü keyfi devlet uygulamalarına karşı koruyan bu kadim hukuk aracının işlevselliğini üç ana kategori üzerinden incelemektedir: vatandaşlar, göçmenler ve ABD toprakları dışında tutulan yabancı savaşçılar. Ex parte Milligan (1866), Zadvydas v. Davis (2001), Jennings v. Rodriguez (2018), Rasul v. Bush (2004) ve Boumediene v. Bush (2008) gibi çığır açan Yüksek Mahkeme kararları üzerinden ilerleyen çalışma, Habeas Corpus'un iç savaş, göçmen gözaltı ve küresel terörle mücadele gibi farklı kriz bağlamlarında nasıl bir işlev gördüğünü ortaya koymaktadır. Analiz, bu hakkın, coğrafi sınırların ve hukuki statülerin ötesinde, devlet iktidarının sınırlarını çizmede ve bireysel özgürlüğün nihai garantörü olmada nasıl merkezi bir role sahip olduğunu kanıtlamaktadır. İnceleme çerçevesinde, Habeas Corpus'un, ABD anayasal demokrasisinde süregelen bir güç ve özgürlük mücadelesinin temel taşı olduğu argümanı savunulmaktadır.
Anahtar kelimeler: Habeas Corpus, ABD Anayasa Hukuku, Bireysel Özgürlükler, Göçmen Hakları, Terörle Mücadele

Anahtar Kelimeler

Habeas Corpus , ABD Anayasa Hukuku , Bireysel Özgürlükler , Göçmen Hakları , Terörle Mücadele

Kaynakça

• Aleinikoff, T. A. (2001). Detaining plenary power: The meaning and impact of Zadvydas v. Davis. Georgetown Immigration Law Journal, 16, 365.
• Arkin, M. M. (1995). Ghost at the banquet: Slavery, federalism, and habeas corpus for state prisoners. Tulane Law Review, 70, 1.
• Bianco, J. (2017). Chance to change: Jennings v. Rodriguez as a chance to bring due process to a broken detention system. Duke Journal of Constitutional Law & Public Policy Sidebar, 13, 37.
• Briggs, B. (2021). Keeping liberty at bay: How the United States' Guantanamo Bay detention facility violates detainees' rights by limiting habeas corpus protections and how a 1979 Supreme Court case can provide a solution. Berkeley Journal of Criminal Law, 26, 1.
• Chesney, R. M. (2008). Boumediene v. Bush. American Journal of International Law, 102, 848. Cohen, A. (2023). The right to counsel for habeas proceedings. Minnesota Law Review Headnotes, 108, 87.
• Davis, M. J. (2024). The suspension clause, and Lincoln’s possible constitutional abrogation. International Journal of Legal Studies (IJOLS), 18(2), 13–25.
• Faith, R. O. (2018). ‘This despotic and arbitrary power’: British diplomacy and resistance in the habeas corpus controversy of the American Civil War (Doctoral dissertation, University of Akron).
• Fallon, R. H., Jr. (2010). The Supreme Court, habeas corpus, and the war on terror: An essay on law and political science. Columbia Law Review, 110, 352.
• Federman, C. (2010). Habeas corpus in the age of Guantánamo. Annals of the Faculty of Law in Belgrade – Belgrade Law Review, 58(3), 215–234.
• Frost, A., & Lindquist, S. A. (2010). Countering the majoritarian difficulty. Virginia Law Review, 719–797.
• Glass, A. S. (1934). Historical aspects of habeas corpus. St. John’s Law Review, 9, 55.
• Hafetz, J. (2011). Calling the government to account: Habeas corpus in the aftermath of Boumediene. Wayne Law Review, 57, 99.
• Hlass, L. L., & Yanik, M. (2023). Studying the hazy line between procedure and substance in immigrant detention litigation. Harvard Civil Rights-Civil Liberties Law Review, 58, 203.
• Jackson, J. D. (2004). The power to suspend habeas corpus: An answer from the arguments surrounding Ex Parte Merryman. University of Baltimore Law Review, 34, 11.
• Jagodinsky, K. (2025). Special issue introduction: The many faces of habeas corpus in the American West. The Western Historical Quarterly, 56(2), 87–92.
• Jastram, K. (2024). Climate change and cross-border displacement: What the courts, the administration, and Congress can do to improve options in the United States. Case Western Reserve Journal of International Law, 56, 309.
• Jordan, D. (2002). Zadvydas v. Davis. Washington and Lee Race & Ethnic Ancestry Law Journal, 8, 107. Larkin, P. J. (2021). The reasonableness of the "reasonableness" standard of habeas corpus review under the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996. Case Western Reserve Law Review, 72, 669.
• Margulies, P. (2019). The boundaries of habeas: Due process, the suspension clause, and judicial review of expedited removal under the Immigration and Nationality Act. Georgetown Immigration Law Journal, 34, 405. Martin, D. A. (2001). Graduated application of constitutional protections for aliens: The real meaning of Zadvydas v. Davis. The Supreme Court Review, 2001, 47–137.
• Medrano, M. P. (2018). Not yet gone, and not yet forgotten. The Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 108(3), 597–638.
• Meltzer, D. J. (2008). Habeas corpus, suspension, and Guantanamo: The Boumediene decision. The Supreme Court Review, 2008(1), 1–59.
• Meyerstein, A. (2007). The law and lawyers as enemy combatants. University of Florida Journal of Law & Public Policy, 18, 299.
• Mishkin, P. J. (1965). Foreword: The high court, the great writ, and the due process of time and law. Harvard Law Review, 79, 56.
• Modjeska, J. (2010). The privilege of the writ: The Supreme Court and post-9/11 detainee habeas corpus entitlement. SSRN Electronic Journal. https://ssrn.com/abstract=1672941
• Motomura, H. (2005). Immigration law and federal court jurisdiction through the lens of habeas corpus. Cornell Law Review, 91, 459.
• Nelson, L. R. (2010). Territorial sovereignty and the evolving Boumediene factors: Al Maqaleh v. Gates and the future of detainee habeas corpus rights. University of New Hampshire Law Review, 9, 297.
• Neuman, G. L. (2010). Habeas corpus suspension clause after Boumediene v. Bush. Columbia Law Review, 110, 537.
• Pope, J. (2005). Opening the flood gates: Rasul v. Bush and the federal court's new world-wide habeas corpus jurisdiction. Northern Illinois University Law Review, 26, 331.
• Rolston, R. J., & Davidson, R. M. (2023). Habeas corpus: The great writ shines on. The UWI St. Augustine Law Journal, 1(1), 47–64.
• Satija, S. Y. (2004). Deciding the issue of the legality of indefinite detention of inadmissible aliens one year after
• Zadvydas v. Davis: The Ninth Circuit broadens the rights afforded to individuals not legally admitted to the United States (XI v. INS, 298 F.3d 832 (9th Cir. 2002)). Washington University Global Studies Law Review, 3, 251.
• Schroeder, J. J. (2021). Conservative progressivism in immigrant habeas court: Why Boumediene v. Bush is the baseline constitutional minimum. Harbinger, 45, 46.
• Schroeder, J. J. (2022). Why cost/benefit balancing tests don't exist: How to dispel a delusion that delays justice for immigrants. West Virginia Law Review, 125, 183.
• Siegert, C. J. (2022). From the Magna Carta to the MCA: The development of the right to habeas corpus for enemy combatants of the United States. Bellarmine Law Society Review, 12(1), 36–53.
• Sloss, D. (2004). Availability of U.S. courts to detainees at Guantanamo Bay Naval Base—Reach of habeas corpus—Executive power in war on terror (Rasul v. Bush). American Journal of International Law, 98, 788.
• Spivak, R. (2023). Summary: Resting in part on President Trump, 11 Guantanamo detainees petition for habeas. Lawfare. https://www.lawfareblog.com
• Wert, J. J. (2023). Habeas corpus in America: The politics of individual rights. University Press of Kansas.
• Yoo, J. (2009). Lincoln and habeas: Of Merryman, Milligan, and McCardle. Chapman Law Review, 12(3), 1–29.